|
In the February 2002 issue of the Journal, Warren Hirsch described
the classic rubber band experiment and its oft-used thermodynamic implications
in JCE Classroom Activity #42 (1).
It is an amusing coincidence, but perhaps confusing to many, that my article showing
“disorder” to be a misleading concept happened to appear in the same
issue (2). Explication of the behavior of
a rubber band has long been thought to be a prime example of the value
of “disorder”!
However, when “disorder” is discarded, the rubber band experiment
can be more fundamentally understood. First, energy spreading out in molecular
motion is what entropy measures. The more such dispersal of energy occurs or can
occur (as a function of temperature), the greater the entropy (3).
Second, the process of stretching a rubber band (and its retraction) involves
two modes of energy spreading out (4).
The major way in which energy is spread out in the long twisted molecules in
rubber is in the rotating portions of the molecules or in equally fast bending
of the links per molecule. This is favored in the conformations of unstretched
rubber where parts of the molecules are relatively free to move, as in a liquid.
Therefore in the unstretched rubber, energy is much spread out—as is indicated
by its high entropy. In contrast, when a rubber band is pulled, its enormous number
of lengthy molecules are stretched out and there is less opportunity for free
rotation or bending in these conformations. There are fewer ways for energy to
be distributed among the molecules and thus a stretched band has lower entropy
than one unstretched. When the tension on the band is released, because
its energy can be more spread out in the unstretched form, the band spontaneously
snaps to that form and its entropy increases.
The thermal effects fit well with the foregoing description of molecular behavior.
A rubber band when stretched becomes warm from the work of stretching it plus
the energy that can no longer be spread out in the more mobile molecular conformations
of the unstretched rubber. After reaching room temperature, the stretched band
has much less entropy than the unstretched band. When the band is rapidly released,
it becomes cool because energy is spread out from the vibrational to the now-available
conformational modes of motion and the temperature drops. Eventually, energy from
the surroundings is spread out within the band to bring its temperature to ambient.
It is probably best in most classes to emphasize only the predominant path
of energy dispersal: more ways to spread out in the more freely rotating segments
of the molecules in the unstretched rubber (higher entropy), fewer ways in the
less freely moving portions in stretched rubber (lower entropy).
The minor pathway of energy dispersal involves weak bond formation or breaking
(van der Waals interaction between molecules or parts) that are analogous to phase
change from a “liquid” unstretched rubber (5)
to a “solid” stretched rubber band. When the band is stretched, the
warmth is due to the work done plus the energy released analogous to a true liquid
changing to a solid. (A liquid has more ways of spreading energy among its freely
rotating molecules than in the more restricted molecular movement in a solid.)
Conversely, when the “solid” stretched band is released, it cools
because energy must be transferred from the surroundings to be spread out in the
increased number of rotations and movement in the “liquid” unstretched
rubber.
The “disordered” sketch, atop page 200B (right) in Activity #42
(1), actually represents a liquid polymer because
of the presence of relatively free rotating and bending of the many links in unstretched
poly(isoprene) (5), a state characterized
by increased entropy compared to the solid form shown (in a too precise pattern)
at its left.
(Note that it is not correct to apply the Gibbs equation where the pressure
on the system is difficult to define; the ΔA = ΔU –
TΔS of Helmholtz is proper because the volume is essentially
constant) (4).
Literature Cited
- Hirsch, W. J. Chem.
Educ. 2002, 79,
200A–200B.
- Lambert, F. L.
J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 187–192.
- Lambert, F. L. J.
Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1241–1246.
- Byrne, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1994,
71, 531–533.
- Nash, L. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1979,
56, 363–368.
|