Added: 3 years ago
From: MIT
Views: 12,194
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (9)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I don't understand (around the 40 minute mark) how he was able to generalize the value of epsilon to any value (ie., J/mol), when during the derivation the assumption of an infinitesimally small epsilon allowed him to keep the chemical potential of each species constant.

    Could someone explain?

  • Epsilon is assumed to be a positive scaler, because we'er letting it proceed a little bit forward. Then, the sign of delta G only depend on what in brakets. So, you can ignore epsilon. We would have used dni, but the coefficients are different, So, we use a small "amount of reaction", epsilon. Note, that dni goes to epsilon as either goes to zero.

  • @PointOnACurve Well, what I was wondering was how earlier in the derivation (around 32 minutes), he had chemical potential be a constant rather than a function because the reaction was only preceding an infinitesimally small amount.

    But I think I understand now; the deltaG is just written in different units as /mol, but both the epsilon and /mol are referring to the "instantaneous" deltaG. For some reason I didn't realize that deltaG is only one value at a certain point in the reaction.

  • Kx=Kp*P^(-Δn)

  • la Kp. queda en funcion de P a la delta niu. No a la menos delta niu

  • wow! very goood class!

    I have an exam next friday about that.....

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more