Why is stirring a hot solution a demonstration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Indian Fruitloop
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claim that stirring a hot solution serves as a demonstration of the second law of thermodynamics, particularly in relation to entropy and crystallization. Participants explore the implications of stirring on the spontaneity of exothermic reactions and the role of mechanical energy in these processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that the teacher's analogy of dissolving sugar in coffee illustrates increasing entropy, claiming that crystallization will not occur regardless of stirring, assuming constant temperature and no evaporation.
  • Another participant challenges this view, asserting that crystallization is an exothermic reaction and that adding mechanical energy through stirring contradicts the conditions necessary for such a reaction to proceed.
  • A further contribution emphasizes that spontaneity is determined by the total change in entropy of the system and surroundings, suggesting that the teacher's statement may refer to increasing entropy in the system.
  • One participant questions the assumptions made regarding exothermic reactions and spontaneity, noting that the relationship between energy input and reaction progress is more complex than presented.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of using stirring as a means to demonstrate thermodynamic principles, with some participants arguing that it misrepresents the nature of exothermic processes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express conflicting views on the validity of the teacher's analogy and the implications of stirring on crystallization and entropy. No consensus is reached, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of thermodynamic principles, particularly regarding the relationship between energy input, spontaneity, and entropy. The discussion reveals a lack of clarity on how mechanical energy affects exothermic reactions and crystallization processes.

Indian Fruitloop
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
My chemistry teacher recently made something that must be one of the most stupid statements ever made:
She claimed that this was a demonstration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
"We can usethe analogy of dissolving sugar in coffee as an example of increasing entropy, in this case - disorder. No matter how you stirred, the sugar would not separate from the coffee again because that would be bringing order out of chaos."

Isn't that ridiculous? Crystallisation is an exothermic reaction and could anyone be so dumb as to think that an exothermic reaction could proceed when you add mechanical energy to it.

It just shows hercomplete lack of understanding of thermodynamics in her insistence of using a false 'analogy' involving the spontaneity of an exothermic process depending on the addition of mechanical energy.

But she refuses to admit she was wrong!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Your teacher's statement is perfectly correct. Whether you stir or not,crystallization will not take place. That is assuming that the temperature does not change and there is no evaporation. It is a good example of increasing entropy.
 
Isn't that ridiculous? Crystallisation is an exothermic reaction and could anyone be so dumb as to think that an exothermic reaction could proceed when you add mechanical energy to it.

It just shows hercomplete lack of understanding of thermodynamics in her insistence of using a false 'analogy' involving the spontaneity of an exothermic process depending on the addition of mechanical energy.

But she refuses to admit she was wrong!

spontaneity really has no direct relation to enthalpy, it's determined by the change in the total entropy of the system. dG=dH-TdS, pertains to a constant temperature, constant pressure process, all the variables refer to the system, but it's derived from when for a spontaneous process

dSsys>dSsurr, dSsys>-dq/T, for constnat pressure

dSsys>dH/T, TdSsys-dH>0, we assign the function G=H+TS

dG=dH+TdS, dG>0 for constant temperature, pressure process

)dStotal>0 for a spontaneous process, dSsys-dSsurr>0)
 
WTF?!?

When she added stirring she invalidated the whole example. Because she is trying to make an EXOTHERMIC reaction dependent on adding mechanical energy.

Crystallization is exothermic. Stirring is adding energy. Exothermic reactions can't proceed if you add energy (unless you include activation energy which doesn't count).

She tries to pretend that stirring is adding disorder to the system, that if the two solutions were at the same temperature, cool enough for crystals to form, the stirred solution would not crystallise because it was having disorder added to it.

In her example where she said no matter "how much you stirred" the implication is that this exothermic process depends on the addition of mechanical energy.

Which is just totally ignorant.
 
Crystallization is exothermic. Stirring is adding energy. Exothermic reactions can't proceed if you add energy (unless you include activation energy which doesn't count).

So why is it that when you stir a hot solution, the solution cools faster. You're increasing the collisional frequency between molecules, the energy is dissipated by stirring the solution.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here. Just because a reaction is exothermic doesn't require that the process be spontaneous, in fact, it has no direct bearing on whether a reaction will proceed in many cases. Total change in entropy of the system and surroundings determines spontaneity, and when your teacher was referring to the situation of stirring, she probably was referring to increasing the entropy of the system and perhaps additional chances for crystallization (of course, the chances are incredibly small).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K