3
$\begingroup$

In the book Battery Technology Handbook by Kiehne [1] (Google Books) on page 21, equation (32):

The reversible heat effect per time unit can be related to current flow, because each multiple of the cell reaction requires the current amount $n\cdot F$:"

$$\frac{\mathrm dQ_\mathrm{rev}}{\mathrm dt} = \frac{Q_\mathrm{rev}}{nF}\cdot i \label{eqn:32}\tag{32}$$

with $n$: number of exchanged electrons; $F$: Faraday constant $(\pu{96485 A s/equivalent})$; $i$: current in $\pu{A}$.

Two questions:

  1. How is the current related to $nF$? current and $nF$ have different dimensions?

  2. How can one derive equation \eqref{eqn:32}?

References

  1. Battery Technology Handbook, 2nd ed.; Kiehne, H. A., Ed.; Electrical engineering and electronics; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2003. ISBN 978-0-8247-4249-2.

Update in order to respond to comments

I know that $\Delta G$ is connected with a reversible process and in principle, your derivation makes sense. My problem lies in the formula:

$\Delta S = \frac{Q_{rev}}{T}$ is a basic thermodynamic relation and the Gibbs Energy is defined as $\Delta G = \Delta H - T\Delta S$. So, following your derivation $\Delta H$ would be zero. Since this problem is connected with my other question, which is linked in the comments, I would expect two different heat terms, a reversible one and a irreversible one. And from the formulas there, I expect $Q_{rev}$ to be connected only with entropy. Therefore, $Q_{rev} = -T\frac{\text{d}G}{\text{d}T}$ rather than $Q_{rev} = -\Delta G$ as the combination of your equations (2) and (4) implies.

I is quite hard to explain my problem...

There is another way to get to the equation in question, but this seems to be too simple:

Since, $\frac{\Delta G}{nF} = \text{Voltage}$, $\frac{T\Delta S}{nF} = \text{formal Voltage}$. And $\textit{Voltage}\cdot I = P = \dot{Q} = \frac{\text{d}Q}{\text{d}t}$, equation (32) seems perfectly valid, but this is a kind of a weak derivation.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

How is the current related to nF? current and nF have different dimensions?

$nF$ is the charge $C$ transferred during the reaction, while current $i$ is the rate of charge transfer ($dC/dt$).

The following is a derivation, now edited to be more rigorous. The equation you provide is an expression for electrical Joule heating, which follows in the steady-state from the expression for the power (rate of work) generated by the battery. From Ohm's law

$P=\left(\frac{dw_{rev}}{dt}\right)=-i^2R=-i E_0 \tag{1}$

where $E_0$ is the (open-circuit) electric potential, $i$ the current, $w_{rev}$ is the reversible electrical work. Note that $E_0$ is the potential when reversible work is done.

Now assume a steady state, with constant P and T constraints, with work done and heat generated cancelling (so that the internal energy $U = constant$), that is

$Q_{rev} = -w_{rev} \tag{2}$

and therefore also power and rate of heat dissipation equal:

$\left(\frac{dQ_{rev}}{dt}\right)=-\left(\frac{dw_{rev}}{dt}\right)=i E_0 \tag{3}$

Now according to the Nernst equation,

$\Delta G=w_{rev} =-nFE_0 \tag{4}$

In the steady-state the dissipated heat is equal to the electrical work, so that, combining (2) and (4), we have that

$\frac{Q_{rev}}{nF}=-\frac{w_{rev}}{nF}=E_0 \tag{5}$

which leads, combined with (3), to the equation in the book:

$\left(\frac{dQ_{rev}}{dt}\right)=i \frac{Q_{rev}}{nF} \tag{6}$


Aside

Note I apply the opposite sign convention for work from that in the OP (apologies) - in the convention I use work is positive when performed on the system (charging a battery is positive work, discharging negative work). This does not affect the result of the derivation, since I apply the same sign convention for heat (for an exothermal process heat is negative).


On $\Delta H$ and an alternative (longer) derivation

For a process at constant p, it is common to encounter the expression

$$\Delta H = Q_p$$

However if there is non-PV work, the more general form of this equation is

$$\Delta H = Q_p + w_{non-pV}$$

This expression is general and applies when the process is carried out either reversibly or irreversibly. In differential form,

$$d\Delta H = dQ_p + dw_{non-pV} \tag{a1}$$

Note also that in the preceding derivation non-pV work is electrical.

When the process is carried out reversibly a maximum amount of work is done and

$$w_{non-pV,rev} =\Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S = \Delta H - Q_{rev}$$

This leads to the following expression at constant T, equal to that in the linked problem (but note the different work sign convention here):

$$ d\Delta H = dQ_{rev} + dw_{rev} = d\Delta G + Td\Delta S \tag{a2}$$

where I dropped the "non-pV" subscript since the work is assumed to be electrical.

Since H is a state function it must be equal for reversible and irreversible processes, and we can equate (a1) and (a2), leading to the following general expression:

$$ d\Delta H = dQ_p + dw_{ele}= d\Delta G + Td\Delta S $$

which leads finally to

$$ dQ_p = - dw_{ele} + d\Delta G + Td\Delta S \tag{a3}$$

Taking the time derivative of this equation results in the final expression in the linked problem (making sure to account for differences in the work sign convention):

$$\dot{Q} = \dot{Q}_\text{rev} + \dot{Q}_\text{irrev} = IT\,\frac{\mathrm dE_0}{\mathrm dT} + I(E-E_0) \tag{a4}$$

To obtain the equation in this problem it is only necessary to apply the reversibility condition starting from either (a3) or (a4). Starting from (a3),

$$ dQ_{rev} = - dw_{ele,rev} + d\Delta G + Td\Delta S $$

But $ dw_{ele,rev} = d\Delta G $ which leads to (somewhat trivially)

$$ dQ_{rev} = Td\Delta S $$

Taking the time derivative and inserting the Nernst expression for $\Delta S$ (twice!) gives

$$\dot{Q}_\text{rev} = \left(\frac{dQ_{rev}}{dt}\right) = IT\,\frac{\mathrm dE_0}{\mathrm dT} = I\frac{Q_{rev}}{nF}$$

which is the desired expression. The same result can be arrived at by applying the reversibility condition to equation (a4).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I have the feeling that in this particular field there is a distinct sloppiness with mathematical formulations and nomenclature, or is it just me? What I still don't understand: Why do they claim $I=nF$? $\endgroup$ – user230821 May 2 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ I can't say who's being sloppy, but I also don't follow, where is it claimed that I=nF? In the other question you posted it is claimed that C = znF (=charge) which seems consistent. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn May 2 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ But the book states: $Q_{rev} = T\Delta S$, what means, that your ansatz in equation (2) would be wrong, wouldn't it? Furthermore, $\Delta G$ is connected with the OCP $E_0$ (not the standard state!) and the electrical power is connected with a voltage under load. Compare to my other question: link $\endgroup$ – user230821 May 3 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ $n$ is the number of exchanged electrons not the amount of substance... so $nF$ is not C, $znF$, where n is the amount of substance and z the valence would be the charge... or is this, because the whole thing is related to one formula conversion, i.e. per mol? $\endgroup$ – user230821 May 3 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, that might be the source of my misunderstanding between nF and current. This problem seems solved. For the other part please see the updated question above. $\endgroup$ – user230821 May 4 at 8:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.