[Doubt] Chemical Potential of an Ideal Gas

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the chemical potential of an ideal gas using its heat capacities. The original poster presents equations related to thermodynamics, including expressions for internal energy, entropy, and Gibbs free energy, while attempting to derive the chemical potential.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the chemical potential by manipulating thermodynamic equations but questions the validity of their approach, particularly regarding the dependence on the number of moles.
  • Some participants question the assumptions made about the variables involved, particularly the treatment of intensive versus extensive properties.
  • Others suggest re-expressing the chemical potential and correcting potential errors in the derivation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's derivation, pointing out potential errors and suggesting alternative expressions. There is a focus on clarifying concepts related to intensive and extensive properties, as well as the implications of the equations presented.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the treatment of variables and constants in the derivation, as well as the implications of the chemical potential being an intensive property. The original poster expresses concern about their understanding of the concepts involved.

Sabian
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Basically, find the chemical potential of an ideal gas knowing its heat capacities.

Homework Equations


P V = n R T \ \ \ \ (1)
U = n c_V T + U_0 \ \ \ \ (2)
S = S_0 + n c_V ln (T) + nR ln (V) = S_0 + n c_V ln (T) + nR ln \left ( \frac{nRT}{P} \right ) \ \ \ \ (3)
\mu = \left ( \frac {\partial G}{\partial n} \right )|_{T,P} \ \ \ \ (4)
G = U - TS + PV \ \ \ \ (5)

The Attempt at a Solution



Mixing (1), (2) and (3) into (5) I get

G = n c_V T + U_0 - T \left (S_0 + n c_V ln (T) + nR ln \left ( \frac{nRT}{P} \right ) \right ) + nRT

Then differentiating with n, while treating P and T as constants

\mu (P, T, n) = c_V T - T \left (c_V ln (T) + R ln \left ( \frac{nRT}{P} \right ) + R \right ) + RT

Which has no constants, but I suppouse that the chemical potential, as every good classical potential, must be defined beginning at some constant \mu_0.

What I am doing wrong?

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In the third term for S, the V should just be RT/P. Then, re-express μ as

μ = μ0(T) + RT ln P

μ is an intensive property and cannot depend on the number of moles.

Determine what μ0 is as a function of T.
 
Good catch on the molar dependance, hadn't looked at that. The exercise I was looking at says \mu (P,T,n). I have some doubts on that being on purpose, but anyway...
------------------
Then I have

G = n c_v T + U_0 - T \left (S_0 + n c_v ln (T) + nR ln \left ( \frac{RT}{P} \right ) \right ) + nRT

Then the differentiation is\mu (P, T,) = c_v T - T \left (c_v ln (T) + R ln \left ( \frac{RT}{P} \right ) \right ) + RT

Which is the same as

\mu (P,T) = c_v T - T c_v ln(T) + TR ln (RT) - TR ln (P) + RT

On a side note, I understand your approach, but I'm concerned about what's wrong with my derivation rather than getting the actual answer. I don't mean to be rude and I greatly appreciate your help on that other way to make the derivation, but I'm afraid I might have some wrong concepts and that's why what I've done is wrong.

Thanks :)
 
There are some sign errors in your derivation. Watch the algebra. Also, you can use Cp = Cv + R

to make the final result more concise.

I might also mention that the chemical potential is usually regarded as the Gibbs free energy per mole. You also need to understand that U0 and S0 are extensive properties, and thus are proportional to the number of moles. Thus, they can be expressed as U0 = n u0 and S0 = n s0, where u0 is the internal energy per mole in some reference state. With these substitutions, you can divide G by n and get μ.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K