Meaning of thermodynamical potentials (F,H,G,E)

  • Thread starter Thread starter sisife
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potentials
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the intuitive meanings of thermodynamic potentials: internal energy (E), Helmholtz free energy (F), enthalpy (H), and Gibbs free energy (G). The user seeks clarity on these concepts, particularly how G represents energy changes in non-quasi-static processes. It is emphasized that G must decrease for spontaneous processes at constant temperature and pressure, while F must decrease at constant temperature and volume. The relationship between these potentials and spontaneity is highlighted, suggesting they act as indicators for process feasibility. Overall, the conversation aims to enhance comprehension of these thermodynamic quantities and their practical implications.
sisife
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello!

I'm trying to grasp the "intuitive" meaning of the thermodynamical potetials E,F,H and G, or at least of their connections.

As in other threads before mentioned, I learned that you can't real.y give an meaningful definition of energy , so I assume for the other potentials this is also true.
As for what energy 'is', you could just as easily as "What is 'red'? The fact that a simple answer doesn;t exist does not make the concept any less useful.

But at least I have a kind of intuition what energy is, in contrary to the other quantities.

I tried to understand G by considering a quasistatic process. Then Q=TS and W=PV. So G=E-TS-PV is the energychange in a system in a non-quasi-static process (e.g. due to friction etc., or due to a difference in the entropy change (but here I am confused about, how this is connected)). Is this correct?

Are there nice ways to illustrate the other ones? Or is this simply a waste of time? (if I don't have an ituition for what I am doing I always find it difficult to find solutions for a problem).


thanks for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi sisife, welcome to PF. First, G is E-TS+PV. Second, it may be easiest to think of the potentials as "barometers" for spontaneity for processes occurring under different conditions. For processes at constant temperature and pressure, G must be negative for any spontaneous process. At constant temperature and volume, the Helmholtz energy (A or F) must be negative, and so on.

These relationships can all be derived from the required entropy increase during any spontaneous process in a closed system.
 
Mapes said:
For processes at constant temperature and pressure, G must be negative for any spontaneous process.

You mean to write: For processes at constant temperature and pressure, *the change in* G must be negative for any spontaneous process.

I.e., G decreases...

To the OP, you can compare the above statement to what happens to the energy in mechanical processes--E.g., a ball rolls *down* a hill--a spontaneous process decreases the potential energy.
 
That's a good picture, that will help.
Thank you!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top