- #1

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

I have:

- one equation for the chemical equilibrium

- one equation for the energy balance

but I need an other one! entropy balance, maybe?

Thanks

Ric

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter dRic2
- Start date

- #1

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

I have:

- one equation for the chemical equilibrium

- one equation for the energy balance

but I need an other one! entropy balance, maybe?

Thanks

Ric

- #2

BvU

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 15,096

- 4,145

How about an equation of state ? And phase equilibrium - if more phases are present.

- #3

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

Anyway, if more phases are present (and of course I have to include the equations for phase equilibria) how do I set up the EoS? Should I just choose a random component of the system and write the EoS for it ?

- #4

BvU

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 15,096

- 4,145

well, I mentioned them because you did notand of course I have to include the equations for phase equilibria

Is this homework ? What is the context for this exercise ? You have a library full of books on physical properties for chemistry -- there must be a section on mixing rules in one of them ?

Alternatively: google is your friend

- #5

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

PS: I totally forgot about mixutres, thanks again! ;)

- #6

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

- #7

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

Yes

- #8

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

##dG_{T, P} = 0## (chemical equilibrium)

##ΔU = Q + L → ΔU = 0##

##pv=RT##

- #9

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

##\Delta U=0## would have to be accompanied by some consideration of the standard internal energy change for the reaction and the change in sensible heat of the products. There is an analysis of this in a recent thread. I'll try to locate the link.

##dG_{T, P} = 0## (chemical equilibrium)

##ΔU = Q + L → ΔU = 0##

##pv=RT##

Chet

- #10

- #11

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

ΔU=0ΔU=0\Delta U=0 would have to be accompanied by some consideration of the standard internal energy change for the reaction and the change in sensible heat of the products.

I would do like I do if I have to work with enthalpy:

##U_A = U_B##

##U_A = \sum n_{i, A}( u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT)##

where ##T_r## is an arbitrary temperature (of reference).

##U_B = \sum n_{i, B} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT) = \sum (n_{i, A} + \lambda*v_i)(u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT + \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) ##

where ##\lambda## is the extent of reaction and ##v_i## is the stoichiometric coefficient for the i-specie. I do the product and I get:

##U_B = \sum n_{i, A} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT) + \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT + \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT )##

##U_B = \sum n_{i, A} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT) + \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT)##

So ##U_A-U_B## is:

##U_A-U_B = \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT) = 0##

Extracting ##\lambda## from the summation I get:

## \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) = - \lambda \sum v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT)##

Now I set ##u(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT = Δu_{formation, i}(T)## and so ##\sum v_i*Δu(T)_{formation, i} = ΔU(T)_{reaction}## just like I would do with ##h##.

Is it wrong ?

Last edited:

- #12

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

It's OK as long as the number of moles of gas doesn't change between the reactants and the products. In that case, the standard change in internal energy (at constant volume) would be equal to the standard change in enthalpy (at constant pressure). However, if there is a change in the number of moles, the standard internal energy change of reaction and the standard enthalpy change differ.I would do like I do if I have to work with entalpy:

##U_A = U_B##

##U_A = \sum n_{i, A}( u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT)##

where ##T_r## is an arbitrary temperature (of reference).

##U_B = \sum n_{i, B} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT) = \sum (n_{i, A} + \lambda*v_i)(u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT + \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) ##

where ##\lambda## is the extent of reaction and ##v_i## is the stoichiometric coefficient for the i-specie. I do the product and I get:

##U_B = \sum n_{i, A} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT) + \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT + \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT )##

##U_B = \sum n_{i, A} (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_A} c_{v, i} dT) + \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT)##

So ##U_A-U_B## is:

##U_A-U_B = \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) + \sum \lambda*v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT) = 0##

Extracting ##\lambda## from the summation I get:

## \sum (n_{i, A} \int_{T_A}^{T_B} c_{v, i} dT ) = - \lambda \sum v_i * (u_i(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT)##

Now I set ##u(T_r) + \int_{T_r}^{T_B} c_{v,i} dT = Δu_{formation, i}(T)## and so ##\sum v_i*Δu(T)_{formation, i} = Δu(T)_{reaction}## just like I would do with ##h##.

Is it wrong ?

- #13

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

- #14

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

Sorry. I got confused when you mentioned enthalpy. In addition, the data you are going to have available is almost certainly going to be only enthalpies of formation, not internal energies of formation. So this has to be converted to standard internal energies of the reaction, and the conversion is going to involve the change in the number of moles.

- #15

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

Sorry. I got confused when you mentioned enthalpy.

I'm a pretty messy guy in writing, my fault. Anyway I'd like to know if that is correct because I've never encountered an

- #16

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

I think what you did is valid. Basically, what you are using are the internal energies at the standard temperature and pressure.I'm a pretty messy guy in writing, my fault. Anyway I'd like to know if that is correct because I've never encountered aninternal energy of formation. I don't think it is a big deal, but I'd like to be sure.

- #17

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

In addition, the data you are going to have available is almost certainly going to be only enthalpies of formation, not internal energies of formation. So this has to be converted to standard internal energies of the reaction, and the conversion is going to involve the change in the number of moles.

I thought internal energy of reaction is simply - by definition - ##\Delta U_R(T) = \sum v_i \Delta u_{f, i}^°(T)## where ##U_{f, i}^°(T)## is the internal energy of formation of i. (The number of moles does not play a role here, but I may be wrong)

So the real problem, as you pointed out, is how to evaluate ##u_{f, i}^°(T)##.

- #18

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 22,151

- 5,083

As I said, you are not going to find internal energies of formation in tables. You are going to find enthalpies of formation in tables. And to convert to internal energies of formation, you are going to need a ## Pv## for each species.I thought internal energy of reaction is simply - by definition - ##\Delta u_R(T) = \sum v_i \Delta u_{f, i}^°(T)## where ##u_{f, i}^°(T)## is the internal energy of formation of i. (The number of moles does not play a role here, but I may be wrong)

So the real problem, as you pointed out, is how to evaluate ##u_{f, i}^°(T)##.

- #19

dRic2

Gold Member

- 875

- 233

Thank you, I have to study this topic a little bit more because I do not remember it very well.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 867

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 999

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 406

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 278

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 691

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 302

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 992

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 775