Understanding the Helmholtz free energy, what does 'useful work' really mean?

AI Thread Summary
The Helmholtz free energy (F) is a thermodynamic potential that represents the maximum useful work obtainable from a closed system at constant temperature and volume, although these conditions do not remain fixed simultaneously. It is not directly extractable from the system but reflects the energy available for work that does not convert to heat. The discussion highlights that Gibbs and Helmholtz developed this concept to account for real-world conditions where certain variables, like temperature and pressure, remain constant during processes. This transformation into free energy allows for a more accurate understanding of energy changes in systems constrained by environmental factors. Ultimately, the focus is on calculating differences in free energy rather than total energy due to these constraints.
zhermes
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
3
When it comes to thermal/statistical mechanics, I'm a little retarded... so bear with me please.

I've used the helmholtz free energy (F) dozens of times, almost as many times as I've heard and read that F is a measure of the 'useful work attainable from a closed thermodynamic system,' at constant temperature and volume. I don't really understand what that means though. How does a closed system even do work when its temperature and volume are fixed (therefore it can't lose heat and can't exert p dV work right?)

Again, I've seen the equations, and heard the lines; but I'm hoping some enlightened and compassionate soul can share their wisdom and philosophical insight to what it all really means.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The temperature and volume do not stay constant at the same time. Otherwise F doesn't change.
AFAIK the Helmholtz energy is just a thermodynamical potential and is not necessarily extractable from the system.
Normally "useful work" is anything that does not go into heat.
Maybe this helps maybe not.
 
The first part helps a lot.
The rest is still a step in the right direction.

Can you (or anyone) give me an example of a system in equilibrium doing 'useful work' equivalent to F?
 
I have this feeling how this whole wording came about. The Gibbs free energy and the Helmholtz free energy are transforms of the total internal energy U. They are basically convex envelopes of U transformed into new coordinates.
What does this mean?
A system always tries to minimize U, just because it tends to not get back the energy it dissipates to its environment. You see for this it doesn't really matter if you add some constant offset only differences are important.
But Gibbs and Helmholtz noticed that in the "real world" the environment tends to keep certain variables constant. For example experiments in air tend to stay at atmospheric pressure and set ups like combustion engines force the medium into a cylinder that cannot change its volume. This changes the energy budget. So they proposed to transform into another potential which would not be the total energy but what they called "free energy". The energy that actually gets transferred when the environment controls things like temperature, or pressure. And I think this is what they mean by 'useful work attainable from a closed thermodynamic system'. The absolute value is not important, only the fact, that you have to calculate the differences in free energy when your system changes and not the total energy because the environment limits how much you can tap into it.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top