Gibbs free energy doesn't increase (constant T and P) - proof doesn't seem right

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between work done (ΔW), Helmholtz Free Energy (ΔF), and Gibbs Free Energy (ΔG) during isothermal transformations. It highlights the equation ΔG = ΔF + ΔW and questions the assumption that ΔW ≤ -ΔF when ΔW is stated to be greater than or equal to ΔF. The conversation also explores the implications of constant temperature and pressure on Gibbs Free Energy, emphasizing that it never increases in such conditions. Additionally, it presents a method to demonstrate that the system evolves toward maximizing entropy, which correlates with minimizing Gibbs Free Energy. The analysis concludes that understanding these relationships is crucial for thermodynamic processes.
Silversonic
Messages
121
Reaction score
1
First my notes discover that for an isothermal transformation;

ΔW ≥ ΔF

Where W is the work done and F is the Helmholtz Free Energy, F = E - TS.


Then it defines the Gibbs free Energy;

G = F + PV

"For a system at constant temperature and pressure, G never increases";

So ΔG = ΔF + Δ(PV) = ΔF + PΔV = ΔF + ΔW


Then it says "We already know ΔW ≤ -ΔF and therefore ΔW + ΔF = ΔG ≤ 0".

But how can we assume ΔW ≤ -ΔF from the fact that ΔW ≥ ΔF? If ΔW is positive and |ΔW| ≥ |ΔF| then this assumption does not work, and also I have nothing that indicates to me the change in the work done is either positive or negative. I can't seem to show how this proof was meant to work otherwise though, any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Silversonic said:
First my notes discover that for an isothermal transformation;

ΔW ≥ ΔF

Where W is the work done and F is the Helmholtz Free Energy, F = E - TS.


Then it defines the Gibbs free Energy;

G = F + PV

"For a system at constant temperature and pressure, G never increases";

So ΔG = ΔF + Δ(PV) = ΔF + PΔV = ΔF + ΔW


Then it says "We already know ΔW ≤ -ΔF and therefore ΔW + ΔF = ΔG ≤ 0".

But how can we assume ΔW ≤ -ΔF from the fact that ΔW ≥ ΔF? If ΔW is positive and |ΔW| ≥ |ΔF| then this assumption does not work, and also I have nothing that indicates to me the change in the work done is either positive or negative. I can't seem to show how this proof was meant to work otherwise though, any help?



From what I can see...

dW = -PdV + \mu dN
dE = dW + dQ = dW + T dS

At constant temperature...

d F = d E - T dS = dW
so
ΔF = ΔW.

I would be interested in knowing how you show
ΔF ≤ ΔW



Also, there is an interesting way (which may be along the same lines as your notes) to show that the Gibbs free energy never increases in processes at constant temperature and pressure.

We note that in all processes where a system is in contact with a pressure and temperature reservoir, the system will evolve toward a state which maximizes the entropy of both system plus reservoir.

dS^{s+r} = dS^{s} + dS^{r} ≥0
dS^{s} = (1/T^{s})*(dU^{s} + P^{s} dV^{s} - \mu^{s} dN^{s})

With these two expressions and knowing that the temperature and pressure are the same for both system and reservoir, you can show that
dS^{s+r} = -(1/T^{s})*dG^{s}
so that since the system inexorably tends to maximize the entropy of the universe (universe = system plus reservoir), it must also inexorably tend to minimize its Gibbs free energy for processes at constant temperature and pressure.

Anywhoo, that's why I'd say the Gibbs free energy of the system cannot increase for processes at constant temperature and pressure.

-James
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top