Why Max work is equal to electric work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electric Max Work
AI Thread Summary
Gibbs free energy (ΔG) is defined to represent the maximum non-mechanical work available from a system at constant temperature and pressure, which is why it only considers electric work (welec) and not mechanical work. The relationship ΔG = -wmax indicates that wmax is solely attributed to electric work, as mechanical work is not included in this context. To account for mechanical work, Helmholtz free energy (A) should be used instead, which incorporates both thermal and mechanical contributions. The distinction lies in the definitions of the two free energies, with Gibbs free energy excluding mechanical work by design. Thus, the assertion that wmax comprises only electric work is correct within the framework of Gibbs free energy.
mooncrater
Messages
215
Reaction score
18

Homework Statement


It was given in my book that:[/B]
Systems are capable of doing pressure-volume (mechanical work) as well as non-mechanical work(like electric work).
So,(ΔG)P,T=ΔH-TΔS=ΔU+PΔV-TΔS
And
ΔU=qrev-wmech-welec
=qrev-PΔV-welec
(ΔG)P,T=qrev-PΔV-welec+PΔV-TΔS
=-welec
Now in the book its given that:
(ΔG)P,T=-wmax
But wmax should comprise of both the mechanical and electric work . Why only electric work is taken as the wmax?

Homework Equations


None

The Attempt at a Solution


-
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's what the Gibbs free energy gives you: the total work available or necessary for the process, considering that the system is at constant T and P. That means that any mechanical work is not taken into account, and is useful when that work is wasted or when you need to include the work done "for free" by the environment.

If you want to take into account mechanical work, you have to use the Helmholtz free energy.
 
Okay...that means Gibbs free energy doesn't include mechanical work(by definition) whereas helmholtz free energy does. Am I correct here?
 
$$
\begin{align}
dG &= dU -T dS - P dV \\
dA &= dU - T dS
\end{align}
$$
So you see that mechanical work is explicitly removed from the chnage internal energy when calculating the Gibbs free energy, but not the Helmholtz free energy.
 
  • Like
Likes mooncrater
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