Enthalpy compared with energy

Typical values of the energy to form vacancies are for silver, lOSkJmol and for aluminium, 65.5kJmol These values should be compared with the values for the activation enthalpy for diffusion which are given in Table 6.2. It can also be seen from the Table 6.2 that die activation enthalpy for selfdiffusion which is related to the energy to break metal-metal bonds and form a vacant site is related semi-quantitatively to the energy of sublimation of the metal, in which process all of the metal atom bonds are broken. 

It is clear from Table 17.5 that in terms of the gasification stage, both enthalpy and Gibbs energy values are significantly smaller than those of the conventional CTL route. The lost work associated with this first stage is also comparatively smaller. In terms of the synthesis section, we note that it operates close to its Carnot temperature (TCarnot = 480 K), and thus the lost work from this process is reduced significantly. Overall, the lost work amounts to 19 kJ/mol, as compared to the 112 kJ/mol for the conventional route. 

It is interesting that attachment of — ( 2)4— and —CH2CH=CHCH2— to benzene results in nearly the same enthalpy of formation change but it is not obvious how fortuitous this equality is we have reasons for considerable skepticism of its validity68. That formation of naphthalene from benzene is accompanied by a lessened enthalpy of formation increase than that of l,6-methano[10]annulene (yet another name for species 90) from tropilidene would appear to be more of a strain than a resonance derived effect. From Roth, we find the resonance energy increase on going from tropilidene to l,6-methano[10]annulene is 55 kJmol-1 and from benzene to naphthalene the increase is nearly the same, nearly 59 kJmol-1. By contrast, the l,5-methano[10]annulene (99) is less stable by 77 kJmol 1 than the species it appears most naturally to be compared with, namely the isomeric 90. 

In Table I are listed the first calculations (1961 8) of the enthalpy, entropy and free energy of activation at 298K. These are to be compared with the very recent (1980) calculations of Newton (11). 

---