Activation free energy for nucleation

AI Thread Summary
In metals, the activation free energy for homogeneous nucleation differs significantly between cube and sphere shapes, with the cube requiring nearly double the energy. This discrepancy arises because the surface area of a cube is greater than that of a sphere for the same volume, but not by the factor of two. The correct explanation involves calculating activation free energy by differentiating total volumetric and surface area energy concerning cluster size, which reveals the 1.9 times increase. The initial answer focused too much on surface area without addressing the specific calculation needed. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately answering such questions in nucleation theory.
soul
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

Question

In metals, for homogeneous nucleation, activation free energy required for the formation of a stable nucleus are different when the nucleus are considered as a cube and considered as a sphere and the relation between them is energy for cube is almost double of the energy for the sphere. Why?

The answer I gave for this question is;

During the transformation, the total energy is used to create the surface, since the atoms on the surface aren't in equilibrium. For sphere and cube which have the same volume, the surface of the cube is greater than the other. Thus, more energy is needed to create a stable nucleus when its shape is cube.

This was our quiz question and I got zerofrom that! However, I still think that this answer is correct. Could you please tell me the faults and missimg parts that you think could be the answer?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question isn't just asking why the activation free energy is larger, it's asking why it's almost twice as large (actually, 1.9 times). Your answer attributes this increase to surface area, but the surface area of a cube is only 24% larger than that of a sphere of identical volume. I trust that's why your answer was marked wrong.

A better answer would have been to show how the activation free energy is calculated (by differentiating the total volumetric and surface area energy with respect to cluster size). This approach yields the 1.9x figure.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top