Gibbs free energy change at constant pressure is zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of Gibbs free energy change (ΔG) at constant pressure and temperature, questioning whether it can be zero. The initial assertion connects ΔG to changes in enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (ΔS), suggesting a misunderstanding of the relationship between these thermodynamic quantities. Key points include the clarification that ΔS is defined with reversible heat exchange, and that the equation ΔG = ΔH - TΔS holds under equilibrium conditions. However, if a chemical reaction occurs, ΔG can change even if pressure and temperature are constant. The conversation highlights the importance of distinguishing between total changes in state variables (Δ) and differential changes (partial derivatives), which can lead to confusion. The participants emphasize that the interpretation of ΔG varies, with chemists often referring to the partial free energy change, Δ_rG, rather than the total change.
jd12345
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
gibbs free energy change at constant pressure is zero??

IS gibbs free energy change at constant pressure zero?
ΔS = q / T. At constant pressure q = ΔH so ΔS = ΔH / T
So ΔG = ΔH - ΔH/T . T
= 0

I think i am wrong but where? My friend tells me that q involved in enetropy is different from the one we consider in ΔH. I don't understand this. IS heat due to entropy different from the one involved in enthalpy change
I'm all messed up
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org


In my opinion you unwittingly made two assumptions:

1) heat is exchanged reversibly (in the definition of ΔS there is reversible heat)
2) temperature is constant (otherwise ΔG = ΔH - TΔS does not hold, generally ΔG = ΔH - Δ(TS) )

So you have an equilibrium situation with constant T and P in which case G is indeed constant.
 


When a chemical reaction is involved
then
dG=Vdp-SdT+\Delta G d\xi
where \xi is the reaction coordinate. So even if p and T are hold constant, G will change as a result of the chemical reaction taking place.
The problem with using \Delta S=q/T is that it presuposes equilibrium. However, when there is no chemical equilibrium, the formula is not applicable.
 


asym said:
I
2) temperature is constant (otherwise ΔG = ΔH - TΔS does not hold, generally ΔG = ΔH - Δ(TS) )

Not quite,
dU=TdS-pdV+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
dH=TdS+Vdp+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
dG=-SdT+Vdp+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
so \mu_i=\partial G/\partial{n_i}|_{T,p}=\partial H/\partial {n_i}|_{S,p} etc.

For a reaction \sum_i \nu_i X_i=0 the reaction coordinate is defined as
dn_i/\nu_i=d\xi and \Delta G=\sum_i \mu_i \nu_i.
Hence \Delta G=\partial G/\partial \xi |_{p,T}=\partial H/\partial \xi|_{p,S}
Now by definition
\Delta H\equiv \partial H /\partial \xi|_{p,T}=\partial H /\partial \xi|_{p,S}+\partial H/\partial S|_{p,\xi}\partial S/\partial \xi|_{p,T}=\Delta G+T\Delta S as \partial S/\partial \xi|_{p,T}\equiv \Delta S. So ΔG = ΔH - TΔS holds always.
 


DrDu said:
Not quite,
dU=TdS-pdV+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
dH=TdS+Vdp+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
dG=-SdT+Vdp+\sum_i \mu_i dn_i
so \mu_i=\partial G/\partial{n_i}|_{T,p}=\partial H/\partial {n_i}|_{S,p} etc.

For a reaction \sum_i \nu_i X_i=0 the reaction coordinate is defined as
dn_i/\nu_i=d\xi and \Delta G=\sum_i \mu_i \nu_i.
Hence \Delta G=\partial G/\partial \xi |_{p,T}=\partial H/\partial \xi|_{p,S}
Now by definition
\Delta H\equiv \partial H /\partial \xi|_{p,T}=\partial H /\partial \xi|_{p,S}+\partial H/\partial S|_{p,\xi}\partial S/\partial \xi|_{p,T}=\Delta G+T\Delta S as \partial S/\partial \xi|_{p,T}\equiv \Delta S. So ΔG = ΔH - TΔS holds always.

You confuse Δ for the total change of a state variable (what I use in my posts) with the derivative (slope) of the variable with respect to the reaction extent, which is unfortunately denoted by Δ as well, nonetheless, there should be subscript r (like reaction) in that case - to distinguish from mere change.

My arguments are independent on the process happening in the system, be it chemical reaction or anything else. If Δ is just change (what is it's original meaning), then ΔG = ΔH - TΔS cannot hold always which is seen immediately from the mere fact that with varying temperature we wouldn't know what value from the range should be used for T:-)

To sum up: we are not in disagreement, we just interpret the question differently. I believe the asker was referring to simple change by Δ, not to the above-mentioned differential quantity, am I right?
 


Asym,

of course you are right. My impression is that this kind of questions mostly arise because people don't know the difference of the simple \Delta G and the partial free energy change \Delta_r G, with chemists having mostly the second one in mind.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top