I Chemical potential on a solid and its vapor pressure

Physics_Student_2018
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have been reading the book "Nanostructures and Nanomaterials" by G. Cao and Y. Yang, and was intrigued by the following passage in page 33:
"Assuming the vapor of solid phase obeys the ideal gas law, for the flat surface one can easily arrive at:
μvμ = −kTlnP, where μv is the chemical potential of a vapor atom, μ, the chemical potential of an atom on the flat surface, k, the Boltzmann constant, P, the equilibrium vapor pressure of flat solid surface, and T, temperature."

My first impression is that the two chemical potentials should be equal for the solid and its vapor pressure at equilibrium. Could somebody please explain to me how this formula is derived?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My impression is that by μv they mean μv0, the chemical potential of vapour in the standard state (P=1). Then if the vapour at P is in equilibrium with the solid:
μv = μv0 + kTlnP = μ
and hence μv0 - μ = -kTlnP
If μv = μ then P = 1 and the solid sublimes.
 
mjc123 said:
My impression is that by μv they mean μv0, the chemical potential of vapour in the standard state (P=1). Then if the vapour at P is in equilibrium with the solid:
μv = μv0 + kTlnP = μ
and hence μv0 - μ = -kTlnP
If μv = μ then P = 1 and the solid sublimes.

Thanks for your reply. I see that you agree with me that we should have μv = μ at equilibrium. In the last line, did you mean "μv0 = μ then..."? I am still not understanding the physics behind it.
 
Yes, I must have done. μv = μ always at equilibrium; at the sublimation point μv = μ = μv0.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top