Gibbs free energy in standard state vs. equilibriumUnit of the equilibrium constant: contradiction of Bridgman's theorem?What kind of equilibrium constant we use for Gibbs free energy and Van't Hoff equation?Units for dissociation constant and relationship to Gibbs Free EnergySpontaneous Reaction and Gibbs Free EnergyUsing equilibrium constant in gibbs equationIs the Gibbs standard free energy always constant?reconciling free energy equationsUnderstanding Gibbs free energy and enthalpyWhy does the standard enthalpy of formation diverge so far from the standard Gibbs free energy of formation for some substances?Is the equilibrium constant in the expression based on pressure or concentration?How to derive the relation between gibbs energy and equilibrium constant?
Drawing a topological "handle" with Tikz
How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?
Folder comparison
Two-sided logarithm inequality
Bob has never been a M before
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
anything or something to eat
Some numbers are more equivalent than others
Is it possible to have a strip of cold climate in the middle of a planet?
Is it possible to use .desktop files to open local pdf files on specific pages with a browser?
MAXDOP Settings for SQL Server 2014
Diode in opposite direction?
Find last 3 digits of this monster number
How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?
THT: What is a squared annular “ring”?
On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?
What is this type of notehead called?
How must one send away the mother bird?
Greco-Roman egalitarianism
Has Darkwing Duck ever met Scrooge McDuck?
Is XSS in canonical link possible?
Will adding a BY-SA image to a blog post make the entire post BY-SA?
How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Gibbs free energy in standard state vs. equilibrium
Unit of the equilibrium constant: contradiction of Bridgman's theorem?What kind of equilibrium constant we use for Gibbs free energy and Van't Hoff equation?Units for dissociation constant and relationship to Gibbs Free EnergySpontaneous Reaction and Gibbs Free EnergyUsing equilibrium constant in gibbs equationIs the Gibbs standard free energy always constant?reconciling free energy equationsUnderstanding Gibbs free energy and enthalpyWhy does the standard enthalpy of formation diverge so far from the standard Gibbs free energy of formation for some substances?Is the equilibrium constant in the expression based on pressure or concentration?How to derive the relation between gibbs energy and equilibrium constant?
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnQ$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT lnK$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnQ$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT lnK$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnQ$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT lnK$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
New contributor
$endgroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnQ$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT lnK$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
91
New contributor
New contributor
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln1=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnK$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln1=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnK$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln1=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnK$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln1=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnK$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
$endgroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln1=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTlnK$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 5 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
2,453223
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
$endgroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2288
2288
add a comment |
add a comment |
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTlnK$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^0$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^0$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
6 hours ago