
This is a quick preview of the lesson. For full access, please Log In or Sign up.
For more information, please see full course syllabus of AP Chemistry
For more information, please see full course syllabus of AP Chemistry
AP Chemistry Spontaneity, Entropy, & Free Energy, Part I
Lecture Description
Heat, energy, entropy, and spontaneity are all core concepts of thermodynamics. This lecture reviews the basic formulas for heat and work as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy. Energy in the universe is constant and cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form (between heat and work). Spontaneous processes take place without outside intervention. The second law of thermodynamics states that spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. Chaotic, random systems with many possible configurations have a higher entropy than orderly systems.
Bookmark & Share
Embed
Share this knowledge with your friends!
Copy & Paste this embed code into your website’s HTML
Please ensure that your website editor is in text mode when you paste the code.(In Wordpress, the mode button is on the top right corner.)
×
Since this lesson is not free, only the preview will appear on your website.
- - Allow users to view the embedded video in full-size.
Next Lecture
Previous Lecture
2 answers
Last reply by: Parth Shorey
Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:23 PM
Post by Parth Shorey on October 29, 2015
Another question, was the confusion regarding W and Q. You had said Work done by the system is - but considering that I am preparing for my MCATs, I was looking into my physics textbook and it says the opposite of what you said. That work is positive done by the system rather than on it. I was confused because it doesn't make sense to me.
1 answer
Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:49 PM
Post by Parth Shorey on October 29, 2015
Why did you use W=-PV and not PV?
1 answer
Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:46 PM
Post by Jason Smith on October 24, 2015
Hi professor, when you say that the probability of finding a gas bunched together in a corner is zero, do you actually mean zero? Or do you mean highly unlikely? For example, I understand that gasses expand because there are more "states" that it exists in this way compared to a bunched together state. However, given say, 10 trillion years, could a gas EVER spontaneously bunch back together? 100 trillion years? 100 trillion x 100 trillion years? I find this topic very fascinating and I have lots of questions about it. Thank you professor.
1 answer
Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:55 PM
Post by Jason Smith on October 15, 2015
I like to imagine state functions being like this: imagine having a graph chart (sort of like you have in geometry). Now, imagine there being two dots on different locations on the chart. No matter what route you take, the total number is always gonna be the same! Even if I went completely crazy zig-zagging throughout the graph, I would eventually end up with the same number once I reached the second dot. Intuitively, this has helped me make sense of state functions.
2 answers
Last reply by: Jason Smith
Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:58 PM
Post by Jason Smith on October 15, 2015
I can always assume that if q is positive than w will always be negative? Does q and w always end up summing up to zero? Thanks professor.
2 answers
Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:12 AM
Post by Danial Shadmany on March 13, 2015
Why is heat not a state property but Enthalpy is. Aren't they similar?
2 answers
Last reply by: David Gonzalez
Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:56 PM
Post by David Gonzalez on January 12, 2015
Hi professor, great lecture!
I was sitting down yesterday pondering about science, and I was curious as to what your opinion might be to this question: do you think we've learned everything there is to know about thermodynamics? For instance, is there some mysterious "thing" that we don't know yet that might change these principles? Or are these pretty much going to be the same, say, 200 years from now?
Thanks professor.
1 answer
Fri Apr 4, 2014 6:54 PM
Post by Mohamed Kaba on April 4, 2014
This makes too much sense. Thank you sir. I wish that I had discovered your Chem. playlist earlier. I've traveled to the far reaches of google search results(page 10+) to understand entropy, but in a few minutes of watching these videos everything suddenly makes sense.
1 answer
Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:08 PM
Post by KyungYeop Kim on July 11, 2013
(Regarding your kind post on Facebook) thank you very much sir, the concept is much clearer to me now due to your lucid explication. I don't think I'll ever struggle with it again, given that I now finally understand it! May I ask one last question(at least for a while) relating to the further discourse on spontaneity? Suppose there's an exothermic equation and its value of ∆H is some negative number that doesn't matter at the moment. I am asked to show how the temperature, at which the reaction changes from nonspontenous to spontenous, can be predicted. Of course I flipped the equation and got T=(∆G-∆H)/∆S to legitimately calculate the T, and determined that I'd have to know both ∆G and ∆S to do that. But the answer is such that only the value of ∆S seems necessary; Would you agree that both ∆G and ∆S are needed for the calculation regarding the change from non-spontaneous to spontaneous? if so, why? (Please not that there's no other information available; I think unless there's some unknown way to calculate ∆G, then I may be right)Thank you.
1 answer
Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:42 PM
Post by KyungYeop Kim on July 9, 2013
I understand that ∆H-T∆S<0, but I still don't get the charges of ∆H and T∆S and why they have to be that way. Could you provide the document if you would be so nice? I will certainly try to understand but it seems any good resource might help me greatly. Thank you again..
3 answers
Last reply by: KyungYeop Kim
Tue Jul 9, 2013 9:58 PM
Post by KyungYeop Kim on July 9, 2013
Regarding a specific situation in which a nonspontaneous reaction under standard conditions becomes spontaneous at lower temperature, how can I describe this phenomenon in relation to enthalpy, entropy, and free energy? and how can I explain it in terms of temperature change? I've succeeded so far in determining that ΔG>0 since it's nonspontaneous under standard conditions, but what about ΔH and ΔS?
Given the equation = ΔG = ΔH*TΔS; I think the fact that temperature(T) can go either from positive to negative or negative to negative seems to confuse me. Are we assuming, in saying lowering temperature, that the T goes from negative(-) to negative(-)?
I know it's a complex problem, and I apologize if I'm asking too much, but I would like to know what the answer is and why. Thank you always!
1 answer
Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:39 PM
Post by William Dawson on April 14, 2013
Isn't it better to define entropy as the measure of the statistical liklihood of a given configuration, in relation to the total possible number of configurations for that system? Calling it a 'measure of disroder' or of chaos leaves too much language to be interpreted, when really it's a statistical reality best defined with direct reference to the math and not to the symantics of potentially loaded words.
1 answer
Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:20 PM
Post by carlos bara on April 14, 2013
Professor Hovasapian, why is entropy abbreviated with the letter S? what does the s stand for?
2 answers
Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:10 AM
Post by Tong Lai on February 11, 2013
Thank you professor, I like the way you do your lectures. You explain everything and try to keep everything simple for me to understand. Some other professors ,I have to say, try to make everything complex...I will say u are the best professor here in educator.com. Thanks.
1 answer
Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:38 PM
Post by Carina Tull on October 18, 2012
Great Lecture! Thank you very much
1 answer
Sun Oct 7, 2012 2:39 PM
Post by Riley Argue on October 6, 2012
Thank you Professor Hovasapian!
Excellent work as always!
1 answer
Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:09 PM
Post by Vinh Dong on June 5, 2012
Thank you for your awesome lectures. May I say, you look like Albert Einstein. No offense. :P