2
$\begingroup$

I wanted to ask a question about the partial differential of the Free Energy equation.

I learnt to prove the Free Energy equation:

\begin{aligned} \frac{F\left(N_{A}, N_{B}\right)}{k T}=& N_{A} \ln \left(\frac{N_{A}}{N}\right)+N_{B} \ln \left(\frac{N_{B}}{N}\right) \\ &+\left(\frac{z w_{A A}}{2 k T}\right) N_{A}+\left(\frac{z w_{B B}}{2 k T}\right) N_{B}+\chi_{A B} \frac{N_{A} N_{B}}{N} \end{aligned}

and then also learnt about the derivative

$$\mu_{A}=\left(\frac{\partial F} {\partial N_{A}}\right)_{T, N_{B}}$$

where $N$ is the total number of molecules in the mixture, $N_A$ is the number of molecules of type A and $N_B$ is the number of molecules of type B such that

$$N = N_A + N_B$$

so I tried to differentiate the equation above using this idea:

$$\frac{\mu_{A}}{k T}=\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial N_{A}}\left(\frac{F}{k T}\right)\right]_{T, N_{B}}$$

$$=\ln \left(\frac{N_{A}}{N}\right)+1-\frac{N_{A}}{N}-\frac{N_{B}}{N}+\frac{z w_{A A}}{2 k T}+\chi_{A B} \frac{\left(N_{A}+N_{B}\right) N_{B}-N_{A} N_{B}}{\left(N_{A}+N_{B}\right)^{2}}$$

but I couldn't get past the second term.

I could prove the terms

$$\ln \left(\frac{N_{A}}{N}\right) + 1$$

as it was the "product rule" applied on

$$N_{A} \ln \left(\frac{N_{A}}{N}\right)$$

and the rest of the differential apart from

$$-\frac{N_{A}}{N}-\frac{N_{B}}{N}$$

Where do these terms come from?

This derivation taken from here.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You missed the $N$ in the logarithm. Since $N_{B}$ is kept constant while changing $N_{A}$, the total number of particles $N=N_{A}+N_{B}$ changes as well. The missing term is

$$\dfrac{\partial N}{\partial N_{A}}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial N}\left[N_{A}\ln\left(\dfrac{N_{A}}{N}\right)+N_{B}\ln\left(\dfrac{N_{B}}{N}\right)\right]=-\dfrac{N_{A}}{N}-\dfrac{N_{B}}{N}$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi there! I'm just a bit confused because I'm new to this area of thermodynamics. So you're saying that because N is also changing as I'm keeping $N_B$ constant, I need to use the chain rule to differentiate with respect to N right? So, I differentiate everything in the bracket with respect to N i.e. $\frac{\partial}{\partial N}$ but then what happens to the $\frac{\partial N}{\partial N_{A}}$ left over? $\endgroup$ – David Smith May 20 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidSmith $\frac{\partial N}{\partial N_{A}}=1$. $\endgroup$ – eranreches May 21 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ hmm I'm really close to understanding this whole problem now but why is $\frac{\partial N}{\partial N_{A}}=1$? is it because $N$ is a function of $N_A$? Sorry to bother you, this is the only question I have left regarding this! It's just that this is a new way of maths that I haven't come across often. $\endgroup$ – David Smith May 21 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidSmith $N=N_{A}+N_{B}$ so if you keep $N_{B}$ constant and differentiate this with respect to $N_{A}$ you get $1$. $\endgroup$ – eranreches May 21 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ @eranreches I have just read this thread and agree with most of what you have proven. My only question is, if we are using the idea that $\frac{\partial}{\partial N_A} = \frac{\partial N}{\partial N_{A}} \frac{\partial}{\partial N}$ then how did the derivation yield the first term as $\ln \left(\frac{N_{A}}{N}\right)+1$? Surely using the product rule as the OP has mentioned, he kept N constant, right? and you're saying N is not constant in your post? $\endgroup$ – vik1245 May 21 at 13:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.