ELECTRICAL FREE ENERGY AND DEBYE HUCKEL LIMITING LAW ID DISCUSSED DEBYE HUCKEL THEORY PART 1: • DEBYE HUCKEL THEORY DE... PLEASE LIKE, SHARE AND COMMENT
So much appreciation for this detailed derivation. It helped some seemingly trivial biological vitro phenomena identified and observed by assumptions, which indeed, so profound. Thank you very much, again!!
Besides that, I have a doubt. When you substitute the expression for psi (the electrostatic potential) under the integral sign to calculate W1 and W2, shouldn't e (epsilon) represent the charge of the electron, which is a constant, and as such be taken out of the integral sign? This would yieald a different result for W1, with no 2 at the denominator. If I am wrong, if epsilon is not a constant (the electron's charge) and should in fact be integrated (which gives e^2/2), then why did you take K out of the integral sign upon integration of W2 instead? I mean, K is a function of epsilon, since you defined it as K^2=(4pi•epsilon^2•Sum ni Zi^2)/DkT.... and yet you took it out of the integral. I really liked the first part of this video, but there seems to be something mathematically inaccurate about the derivation in part 2. No offense, i think you're doing something great for the community.
Okay. Min. 07:37... If you multiply the Delta W for N (avogadro's number), you get the electrical work required to charge 1 MOLE of the given ion, NOT 1 gram. Careful there... 😉
Sorry if i keep bothering, but here me out: 1) when you wrote: RTln(gamma i) = Ei you forgot to multiply -(Zi^2•epsilon^2•K)/D for Avogadro's number N. Right?
While the whole explanation is very clear but one doubt. How can charge be equal to z*epsilon . The charge of any ion is the charge of an electron* valency of ion always. Bdw thank you so much 😊♥️
Hello! Thank you for the derivation, it has been very helpful. I got a little bit lost though at the point where you equate γi to the energy. From what I understood, the energy is basically ΔW * N, which is not what you did since you equated it to just ΔW (without the N). My question thus is, is γi equated to ΔW or Ei? Cheers!
So much appreciation for this detailed derivation. It helped some seemingly trivial biological vitro phenomena identified and observed by assumptions, which indeed, so profound. Thank you very much, again!!
Thank you very much for such a great appreciation
Thank you so much sir ...this limiting law was so complicated to understand but you really thought thank you so much
Besides that, I have a doubt.
When you substitute the expression for psi (the electrostatic potential) under the integral sign to calculate W1 and W2, shouldn't e (epsilon) represent the charge of the electron, which is a constant, and as such be taken out of the integral sign?
This would yieald a different result for W1, with no 2 at the denominator.
If I am wrong, if epsilon is not a constant (the electron's charge) and should in fact be integrated (which gives e^2/2), then why did you take K out of the integral sign upon integration of W2 instead?
I mean, K is a function of epsilon, since you defined it as
K^2=(4pi•epsilon^2•Sum ni Zi^2)/DkT.... and yet you took it out of the integral.
I really liked the first part of this video, but there seems to be something mathematically inaccurate about the derivation in part 2.
No offense, i think you're doing something great for the community.
Useful sir...
Thanks 🙏
Thank you so much sir for this beautiful explanation
Okay.
Min. 07:37...
If you multiply the Delta W for N (avogadro's number), you get the electrical work required to charge 1 MOLE of the given ion, NOT 1 gram.
Careful there... 😉
Helpful lecture
Thank you sir
Thankuu Sir....
Very nice
Sorry if i keep bothering, but here me out:
1) when you wrote:
RTln(gamma i) = Ei
you forgot to multiply -(Zi^2•epsilon^2•K)/D for Avogadro's number N.
Right?
While the whole explanation is very clear but one doubt. How can charge be equal to z*epsilon . The charge of any ion is the charge of an electron* valency of ion always.
Bdw thank you so much 😊♥️
I think that is what he is saying too. He is using z as the valency of the ion and ε as the electron charge. I believe he mentioned this in part 1.
Sir, plz upload equtn for appreciable concentration
Hello! Thank you for the derivation, it has been very helpful.
I got a little bit lost though at the point where you equate γi to the energy. From what I understood, the energy is basically ΔW * N, which is not what you did since you equated it to just ΔW (without the N).
My question thus is, is γi equated to ΔW or Ei?
Cheers!
I asked the same question.
I think he made a mistake
Sir, please upload problem solved of net,get type of competitive exam...
I wish to upload problems solved please.
In ln gamma i is electrical energy * N
Or ln gamma i is only electrical energy?
I am confused a little bit at the same part :/
Sir plzzz Hindi ... Me plzzzz
Bai reference book batao
Advanced physical chemistry gurdeep raj
Advanced physical chemistry gurtu gurtu
Advanced physical chemistry gurdeep raj
Advanced physical chemistry gurtu gurtu
Upload in Hindi for better understanding