Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gibbs free energy and equilibrium constant at a high T

  1. Apr 12, 2015 #1
    I posted this earlier, but I just realized it might have been in the wrong section. Sorry

    Okay, so consider you have system in which ΔG<0 and ΔS>0. Using Gibbs free energy (ΔG=ΔH-TΔS), you'll know that it will always be negative. As the temperature increases, it will actually become more and more negative. This means that as the temperature increases to a higher T, ΔG will become even more negative. making the system favor products much more than reactants.

    Now consider the equation for the equilibrium constant, Keq=e^-ΔG/TR. Using this definition, as T gets very high, Keq seems to be going to 1, meaning that there will be an equal amount of product and reactants at a very high temperature.

    These two definitions are both correct, yet they seem to contradict one another. Why is that? I feel like I'm missing something very definition based.

    Thanks in advance to anyone who helps :)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 12, 2015 #2

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Without getting into any other arguments - Keq doesn't go to 1.

    [tex]K_{eq} = e^{\frac {-\Delta G}{TR}} = e^{\frac {-(\Delta H - T\Delta S)}{TR}} = e^{\frac {-\Delta H}{TR}}e^{\frac {\Delta S}{R}}[/tex]
     
  4. Apr 12, 2015 #3

    Oh wow, I can't believe I did that. Thank you.
    But still, Keq seems to be going to a smaller value, while ΔG is becoming more negative, which doesn't make sense.
     
  5. Apr 12, 2015 #4

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  6. Apr 12, 2015 #5
    Thanks for the reply, but could you go a little bit into how it can be used to answer my question? It doesn't seem to, from what I can tell
     
  7. Apr 13, 2015 #6

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It shows that the change of K with T depends on the sign of ##\Delta H##. This is in line with the argument of Borek.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook