Question about the derivative of Gibbs Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between the derivative of Gibbs energy (G) and changes in volume under varying pressure at constant temperature. The confusion arises from the simultaneous use of "delta" and "derivative" in the context of Gibbs energy changes. It is clarified that "delta" may represent the finite difference in Gibbs energy between two phases of the same material, rather than a direct comparison of values at different pressures or volumes. This distinction helps reconcile the use of finite differences with derivatives in thermodynamic equations. Understanding this concept is crucial for correctly applying thermodynamic principles in related problems.
yungwun22
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


There is a formula which says the change (delta) of volume of a mixture is equal to the partial derivative of delta G with respect to pressure at constant temperature. I don't understand how there can be a derivative and the delta used at the same time on G. I thought that derivatives were used for infinitesimal changes and that delta was used for larger ones.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps the delta signifies not the finite difference between values of G at different pressure or volume (which, as you said, would be improper to combine with differentials), but the finite difference between values of G for two separate phases of the same material.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top