Chemical Education Today
Commentary
Let’s Drive “Driving Force” Out of Chemistry
by Norman C. Craig
One does not have to read far in chemistry textbooks or
papers on thermodynamics to encounter “driving force” being
invoked to account for spontaneous change. “Driving force” is
an idea that sounds significant even though this terminology
is misleading and empty of useful meaning in chemistry. “Driv-
ing” and “force” are concepts from Newtonian mechanics (and
motor vehicles) and thereby suggest that Newtonian mechan-
ics explains spontaneous change. A defender of the use of “driv-
ing force” might ask, “Isn’t a ball driven downward by the force
of gravity, and doesn’t a ball come to rest on a table top be-
cause the energy of the ball is thereby minimized?” The ball-
on-tabletop outcome is not consistent with basic Newtonian
mechanics, in which forces act conservatively. In basic New-
tonian mechanics the ball would bounce forever on a perfectly
elastic surface. Being at the top of the drop is as accessible as
being on the surface in this perpetual motion.
The reason that the ball comes to rest on a tabletop lies
outside basic Newtonian mechanics. The new equilibrium state
arises because the compact, Newtonian energy of the falling
ball is dispersed into random thermal energy of the molecules
in the tabletop (to simplify a bit by neglecting the heat capac-
ity of the ball and the air) by frictional processes. To apply the
central concept of thermodynamics, the ball comes to rest be-
cause the entropy of the “universe” is higher for the ball-on-
tabletop state than for the levitated ball. Energy has been
transformed but conserved, whereas entropy, which measures
the dispersal of energy, has been maximized. An increase in
entropy is not suggested by “driving force”. To the contrary,
“driving force” reinforces the false notion that energy minimi-
zation is a reason for the final state. “Driving force” also sug-
gests a mechanical outcome, as is, for example, characteristic of
the predictable Newtonian circulation of the Moon around
Earth. The outcome of chemical change is a consequence of
statistics; that is, the final state is the most probable state.
Those who use arguments of energy-minimization ver-
sus entropy-maximization—their number is legion in chem-
istry—might say that energy minimization is half of the story
and thus would not be uncomfortable with the “driving force”
terminology. Such advocates might be unconcerned about the
mixed units in the interpretation of
H versus
S.
H has
energy units;
S has units of energy divided by Kelvins. How
can
H and
S with different units be regarded as compet-
ing and coexisting in one expression?
H and
S coexist in
the Gibbs energy1 expression,
GT 
H  T
S, in which
the
S term has been multiplied by T to give this term en-
ergy units. “Aha,” says the advocate of the
S-versus-
H com-
petition, “The units are all energy, thereby confirming the
central importance of energy and its minimization.” How-
ever, we might as well have divided the Gibbs energy expres-
sion by T and have obtained
G/T 
H/T 
S. Now,
www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 6 June 2005
“Driving force” is an idea that sounds significant
even though this terminology is misleading and
empty of useful meaning in chemistry.
the expression has been cast in entropy units. Which formu-
lation is more fundamental and more informative?
What energy is T
S in the expression
G 
H  T
S?
What entropies are
G/T and
H/T in the expression

G/T 
H/T 
S ? In the first expression, T
S is the
energy (qrev, heat term) traded with the surroundings when
the same net process takes place along a special, reversible
path. It is the unavoidable energy trade with the thermal sur-
roundings under the most favorable (reversible) conditions.
For a chemical reaction the reversible path is typically quite
different from the irreversible path. One possible reversible
path consists of embedding the chemical reaction in an
electrochemical cell. Another, abstract reversible path involves
removing stoichiometric amounts of reactants through species-
specific selective membranes and introducing stoichiometric
amounts of products through other selective membranes
(iidi). 
G is the maximum useful work, such as elec-
trical work, available from the net process carried out along
the reversible path under special constraints. These constraints
consist of the same temperature and same pressure at the be-
ginning and the end of the process, often misleadingly called
constant temperature and pressure.
G is also an index of
spontaneity, but this index applies only for the same initial
and final temperature and pressure and for no work other
than PV work.2 Thus, with the Gibbs function formulation
we seem to be comfortably in the world of energies with en-
tropy conveniently on the sidelines.
We now consider the alternative equation (expressed in
entropy units)
G/T 
H/T 
S and change the signs to
give 
G/T  
H/T
S. Of course,
S is the entropy
change in the system. The term 
H/T is easily identified as
the entropy change occurring in the thermal surroundings as
a consequence of the transfer of the energy, 
H, to the ther-
mal surroundings in an ordinary, irreversible process with T
and P the same at the beginning and end of the process. The
sum of the two entropy terms gives 
G/T, which is the total
entropy change,
Stot, or what is often called the entropy
change of the universe. Indeed, we might have started with

Stot 
Ssurr
Ssys, where “tot” is for the total entropy
change, “surr” is for the surroundings in thermal contact with
the system, and “sys” is for the system. This last expression is
a direct consequence of the second law, in which the “change
• Journal of Chemical Education 827
 Chemical Education Today
Commentary
in” (entropy) function is used throughout. We see that the
significance of the
H term is not in telling about energy de-
crease in the system. Its significance is in telling us about en-
tropy increase in the thermal surroundings. We also see that
the change in the Gibbs energy is
Stot disguised in energy
units with a change in sign. Of course, we do not expect en-
tropy to be conserved. Thus, the Gibbs energy is not con-
served, as would be a proper energy.
What are the advantages of the entropy formulation? It
is a direct application of the action (change) law of thermo-
dynamics. This entropy formulation avoids suggesting that a
“driving force” contributes spontaneity to a process. Because
entropy is an expression of probabilities, any suggestion that
a Newtonian determinism explains chemical change is
avoided. We do not regard the quantities
H and
S, which
have different units and which are evaluated for different paths,
as competing when accounting for spontaneous change. We
do not use a derived function,
GT,P, expressed in misleading
energy units. The all-important entropy function is brought
to the foreground, and the energy function recedes into the
background where it belongs when considering spontaneity.
The insightful way to discuss spontaneity in chemical
change is with entropy analyses, in which
Stot 
Ssurr
Ssys
and its extensions are used. This formulation applies to as-
sessing spontaneity in many processes, such as electrochemical
cells, heat engines, and osmosis, to which the Gibbs energy
formulation does not apply. Entropy analyses have been ex-
emplified in several places (1–5). Entropy analyses are ap-
pearing with greater frequency in general chemistry textbooks
such as in the Moore, Stanitski, and Jurs text (6) and in the
Zumdahl and Zumdahl text (7). Barrow was an early advo-
cate of using
Stot in his physical chemistry textbook (8).
Let’s drive the pretentious, empty phrase “driving force”
out of chemistry. I have driven it out of my vocabulary and
now bristle when I encounter it. Let us instead do all we can
to help students become at home with entropy and its direct
applications.
828 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 6 June 2005
Notes
1. The Gibbs energy, G, is often called the “Gibbs free en-
ergy”. This usage is imprecise and misleading. Only under the spe-
cial conditions of the same temperature and pressure at the
beginning and end of a reaction is 
G the free (available) energy,
namely, work available other than the obligatory PV work. For work
other than PV work the change,
GT,P , is the Gibbs free energy.
Never by itself is G a free energy. In addition,
G is defined for
processes, such as a gas changing pressure at constant temperature,
where it is not a free energy.
2. For an electrochemical cell
GT,P is not the index of spon-
taneity.
GT,P
Uel is, where
Uel is the change in amount of
electrical energy produced, because 
GT,P 
Uel = T
Stot (3).
Literature Cited
1. Bent, H. A. The Second Law; Oxford: New York, 1968;
J. Chem. Educ. 1962, 39, 491–499; J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47,
337–341; J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, 44–46.
2. Craig, N. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, 342–346; J. Chem.
Educ. 1988, 65, 760–764.
3. Craig, N. C. Entropy Analysis; VCH: New York, 1992.
4. Craig, N. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 710–715.
5. Davies, W. G. Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics: A
Non-Calculus Approach; Saunders: Philadelphia, 1972.
6. Moore, J. W.; Stanitski, C. L.; Jurs, P. C. Chemistry The Mo-
lecular Science, 2nd ed.; Thomson, Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA,
2005; Chapter 18.
7. Zumdahl, S. S.; Zumdahl, S. A. Chemistry, 6th ed.; Houghton
Mifflin: Boston, MA, 2003; Chapter 16.
8. Barrow, G. M. Physical Chemistry, 5th ed.; WCB/McGraw-
Hill: New York, 1996; Chapter 4.
Norman C. Craig is an emeritus member of the Department
of Chemistry, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074;
Norm.Craig@oberlin.edu
• www.JCE.DivCHED.org