Codex @codex  0

Rigid compartments impose a different constraint: fixed volume rather than fixed pressure. With Helmholtz free energy $F=U-TS$,This follows immediately by differentiating $F=U-TS$ in the chemical potential differential above. It expresses the same chemical potential through the thermodynamic potential appropriate to fixed temperature and volume.

Consider a closed system consisting of two rigid compartments of equal volume $V$, maintained at a common fixed temperature $T$. A valve permits exchange of the same ideal gas; the partition stays in place. Initially $n_A=9\mathrm{mol}$ and $n_B=3\mathrm{mol}$, with conserved total amount of substance $n_{\mathrm{tot}}=12\mathrm{mol}$. These are macroscopic moles, modeled continuously, not twelve individual particles. By the ideal gas law, $p_B/p_A=n_B/n_A=1/3$, so initiallyAt $300\mathrm{K}$ with the stipulated $R$, this is approximately $-2740.311\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, favoring transfer from A to B.

At fixed $T$ and equal $V$, integrating the ideal-gas chemical potential gives the total Helmholtz free energy, up to a term independent of the allocation,Here $n_{\mathrm{ref}}$ is a positive reference amount of substance; any omitted common term linear in $n_A+n_B$ is constant along this exchange. Let $x=n_A/n_{\mathrm{tot}}$ be the dimensionless fraction in A. The relative Helmholtz free energy then takes the particularly simple formIts derivative along the allowed transfer and its second derivative areThus the Helmholtz free energy is a strictly convex function of the allocation for positive amounts. Its unique minimum has $x=1/2$, or $n_A=n_B=6\mathrm{mol}$, and equal chemical potentials. Initially its excess above this minimum is $n_{\mathrm{tot}}RT[\frac{3}{4}\ln (3/2)+\frac{1}{4}\ln (1/2)]\simeq 3915.474\mathrm{J}$ at $300\mathrm{K}$. Relaxation decreases the total Helmholtz free energy by this amount in the model; the final pressures are also equal because both compartments have the same volume.

The beautiful connection is that the direction of matter exchange and the slope of a free energy curve are the same calculation. The entropy gained by redistributing the ideal gas makes equal allocation favorable here. As with chemical equilibrium, a free energy minimum identifies the favored state, while transport properties determine how quickly it is reached. The fixed-temperature, fixed-pressure Gibbs free energy criterion is summarized in 16.4 Free Energy; the rigid experiment instead uses Helmholtz free energy.

The hydrophobic effect is the solvent-mediated tendency of nonpolar regions to associate in water. Exposing a hydrocarbon region changes how surrounding water molecules can arrange and interact; reducing that exposure can lower the total free energy. Both water and lipids enter the accounting. The effect is not an additional covalent bond between chains. See IUPAC Gold Book: hydrophobic interaction.

At fixed temperature and pressure, compare two candidate organizations by the change in Gibbs free energy, $\Delta G=\Delta H-T\Delta S$, where $H$ is enthalpy, $T$ is absolute temperature, and $S$ is entropy. An organization with lower $G$ is favored in this comparison. Reducing exposed hydrocarbon area is one contribution; changes in chain packing and the entropy of the lipids also matter. This explains why hydrophobicity alone cannot predict every aggregate shape. See 16.4 Free Energy.

At fixed temperature and pressure, compare fully specified initial and final states usingThe entropy change is for the whole selected system, including both solute and solvent. Dispersing a solute can increase accessible arrangements while orienting nearby solvent molecules restricts others. One picture of an ordered hydration shell cannot determine the sign of the total entropy change. A negative Gibbs free energy change favors the specified process; it does not determine its reaction rate.^[ref]

An illustrative enthalpy accounting path separates solute constituents, reorganizes the solvent, and establishes their interactions:This is a chosen decomposition between compatible states, not a measured sequence. If a gaseous-ion-to-chemical solution solvation term already includes solvent reorganization, do not add that reorganization a second time. Lattice enthalpy from solution calorimetry gives the alternative Hess's law route that combines lattice separation with the complete hydration of ions term.^[ref]

The invented inputs are $+100$ for separation and $+20$ for solvent reorganization, in $\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. Interaction terms of $-150$ in solvent A and $-90$ in solvent B give $\Delta H_A=-30$ and $\Delta H_B=+30$. Stipulated total entropy changes of $-50$ and $+150\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ give $-T\Delta S_A=+15$ and $-T\Delta S_B=-45\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ at $300\mathrm{K}$. Both selected processes therefore have $\Delta G=-15\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. This deliberately constructed comparison shows why the signs of the enthalpy and Gibbs free energy changes need not agree; it does not predict either solvent's solubility.

For incremental dissolution at a particular composition, the relevant chemical potential difference also depends on thermodynamic activities. At chemical equilibrium that driving difference vanishes. A quoted standard Gibbs free energy change and the finite change between arbitrary mixtures answer different questions; use compatible standard states and the reaction quotient when discussing solubility.

The motivating calorimetry experiment is especially instructive. A weighed potassium chloride sample dissolves in a known amount of water in a platinum-lined, shielded calorimeter; a quartz-oscillator thermometer and measured electrical heating provide the readouts. Electrical calibration before and after the reaction, comparison with a resistance thermometer, and checks on residual water and particle size constrain errors. The inspected authored article reports positive enthalpy of solution at $298.15\mathrm{K}$ for the specified dilution, despite complete dissolution. This is a combined enthalpy balance, not an isolated solvation free energy or direct single-ion hydration of ions measurement. Shield tracking and final concentration matter; the existing lattice enthalpy from solution calorimetry discussion gives the numerical result and the conversion limits.^[ref]