Thermodynamics, cannot reach the answer (Reichl's book related)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a problem from Reichl's thermodynamics textbook regarding the Gibbs free energy of a binary mixture of particles. The user struggles to derive the equation relating the chemical potentials of two phases, specifically the transformation from the condition of equality of chemical potentials to the logarithmic relationship involving mole fractions. The key equations involved include the Gibbs free energy expression and the relationship between mole fractions and particle numbers. The user acknowledges a misunderstanding related to the dependency of mole fractions on the number of particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gibbs free energy and its role in thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with chemical potential and its mathematical representation
  • Knowledge of binary mixtures and mole fraction calculations
  • Basic calculus, particularly differentiation with respect to variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of chemical potential in thermodynamic systems
  • Learn about the implications of phase equilibrium in binary mixtures
  • Explore the mathematical treatment of Gibbs free energy in multi-component systems
  • Review the concept of mole fractions and their dependence on particle numbers
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in thermodynamics, particularly those studying phase equilibria and chemical potential in binary mixtures, will benefit from this discussion.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


Consider a binary mixture of particles of types 1 and 2 whose Gibbs free energy is given by ##G=n_1 \mu _1 ^0 (P,T)+n_2 \mu _2 ^0 (P,T) +RT n_1 \ln x_1 +RTn_2 \ln x_2 +\lambda n x_1x_2##.
Where ##n=n_1+n_2##. And ##x_1## and ##x_2## are the mole fractions of particles 1 and 2 respectively.
The book on page 159 states that the conditions ##\mu _1 ^I=\mu _1 ^{II}## and ##\mu _2 ^I=\mu _2 ^{II}## where the upperscript denotes the phase. I have no problem to understand that those conditions must be fulfilled for equilibrium when there's a coexistance of phases.
But now comes the part where I struggle. From the condition ##\mu _1 ^I=\mu _1 ^{II}##, I'm supposed to find that ##RT \ln x_1 ^I + \lambda (1-x_1 ^I)^2=RT \ln x_1 ^{II}+\lambda (1-x_1 ^{II})^2##.
But I don't reach this.

Homework Equations


##\left ( \frac{\partial g}{\partial n_1} \right ) _{T,P,n_2} =\mu _1##.
##x_2=1-x_1##.

The Attempt at a Solution


##\mu _1 =\left ( \frac{\partial g}{\partial n_1} \right ) _{T,P,n_2}=\mu _1 ^0 (P,T)+RT \ln x_1 + \lambda x_1 (1-x_1)##.
So if I use the condition ##\mu _1 ^I = \mu _1^{II}##, I'd get ##RT\ln x_1 ^I + \lambda x_1 ^I (1-x_1 ^I )=RT\ln x_1 ^{II} + \lambda x_1 ^{II} (1-x_1 ^{II} )##. Which differs from the equation I'm supposed to find.
I know I simply have to derivate g=G/n with respect to ##n_1## while keeping P, T and ##n_2## constant, but I'm simply failing at that apparently.
I've rechecked the algebra many times, I really don't see where I go wrong. My friend told me he reached the good result, so I know I've went wrong somewhere.

Thank you for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
x1 and x2 are not constants. They depend on n1 and n2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you TSny, I overlooked this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K