∆G = 3.16 kcal/mol

from basic thermodynamics:

∆G = ∆Go + RTln([B]/[A])

Adrian Velazquez-Campoy sir can u please elaborate to some extend.

For a general chemical reaction:

n1R1 + n2R2 m1P1 + m2P2

where the R's are reactants and the P's are the products, and the n's and the m's are their corresponding stoichiometric factors, the equilibrium constant is written as follows:

Keq = [P1]m1[P2]m2/[R1]n1[R2]n2

according to the mass action law, where it is usual to divide each individual concentration by the standard concentration 1 M, in order to render Keq dimensionless.

In addition, the standard Gibbs energy change corresponding to that reaction is given by:

∆Go = -RTlnKeq

The concentrations shown in the previous equation are those in the equilibrium state. If the system is not in chemical equilibrium (that is, other concentrations for reactants and products are into play), the Gibbs energy change corresponding to that reaction is given by:

∆G = ∆Go + RTln([P1]m1[P2]m2/[R1]n1[R2]n2)

where now this concentrations are the non-equilibrium concentrations.

Therefore, this equation shows the concentration-dependent correction for the Gibbs energy when the system is not in chemical equilibrium.

Obviously, ∆Go is a fixed value (a constant), but dG will vary as the reaction progresses.

The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.

It is well known that calculus has a definition,

any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.

Based on the definition of calculus, we know:

to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.

As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,

∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.

1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.

2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then

∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).

We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.

that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

.

.

.

Why did the wrong "entropy" appear ?

In summary , this was due to the following two reasons:

1) Physically, people didn't know Q=f(P, V, T).

2) Mathematically, people didn't know AΔB couldn‘t become AdB directely .

If people knew any one of them, the mistake of entropy would not happen in history.

Please read my paper and those answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity

Shufeng Zhang your comment does not have connection with the question asked.

Anyway, you can find other posts in RG intended to overthow classical Thermodynamics with "new" and, strikingly, inadvertedly overlooked developments about entropy, heat "content"... I think it is useless trying to convince you, and others, that you are wrong. It is like discussing with homeopathy or antivaccine supporters: "I know this, you do not. Everybody is wrong (for years)". First, publish your findings. Then, let's see.

Adrian Velazquez-Campoy,

This comment has connection with the question asked, for that entropy doesn't exist means "Gibbs free energy" doesn't exist either.

My paper published in 2012, you can read it in my Featured research.

OK. I will not continue on that direction.

Amit just wanted to calculate dG, even if that does not exist.

Adrian Velazquez-Campoy,

You can read my paper and those answers of the questions on my paper in my Projects, I think you can make the right judgment.

Comparison of New and Old Thermodynamics

1. Logic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Subjectivism, Logical Jump, Interdisciplinary Argumentation.

2. New thermodynamics pursues universality, two theoretical cornerstones:

2.1 Boltzmann formula: ro=A*exp(-Mgh/RT) - Isotope centrifugal separation experiments show that it is suitable for gases and liquids.

2.2. Hydrostatic equilibrium: applicable to gases and liquids.

3. The second and third sonic virial coefficients of R143a derived from the new thermodynamics are in agreement with the experimental results.

3.1. The third velocity Virial coefficient derived is in agreement with the experimental data, which shows that the theory is still correct when the critical density is reached.

4. See Appendix Pictures and Documents for details.

Preprint In the gravitational field, the relation between the interna...

Bo Miao Please, stop inserting the same comments/figures in any post you find.

1. General philosophy principle: internal cause (thermophysical property of working fluid) determines external performance (Carnot efficiency).

2. The second law of thermodynamics holds that Carnot efficiency has nothing to do with the thermophysical properties of working medium.

3. The second law of thermodynamics violates the general principle of life. And it's self contradictory.

4. Please see the picture and link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352708795_The_contradiction_of_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics