Educational background	#
Physical chemist (chemical physicist)	7
Chemical engineer	6
Thermodynamicist (chemical/statistical/mechanical)	5
Chemist	4
Sociologist/Economist/Mathematician	4
Physicist / Metallurgist	4
Physicist-Engineer	2
Physical biologist/Physiologist	2
Engineer (mechanical/materials science/civil)	2
Philosopher	2
Psychologist	1
A ranking of "occupational types" found among the 40 main human free energy theorists; which finds that forty-five percent (or 18 individuals) are either: physical chemists (chemical physicists), chemical engineers, and or thermodynamicists, among the latter of which chemical thermodynamicists, Frederick Rossini (the only one known) in particular, yield the best theory.

In occupations, physical chemist is a chemist who specializes in the field of physical chemistry, namely those subjects where physics and chemistry intersect.

Hmolscience | Accessibility
In the hmolsciences, human chemical thermodynamics is the pinnacle and foundation of the entire field, though still yet a "subject of the future" as Ingo Muller (2007) opinionates. Those who are intellectually or educationally able to understand, comment on, and or to theorize about human chemical thermodynamics, however, are a restrictive or rather selective group of, respectively, chemical thermodynamicists, chemical engineers, and physical chemists, in order of decreasing ability of comprehension; among which, as the adjacent table shows, in respect to free energy applied to the humanities, socially (human free energy), theorists, physical chemists exist in the greatest number.

This sensitive and rarely spoken about issue is explicitly discussed by American sociologist Talcott Parsons, who comments in retrospect about the fall off—impact ripple effect aside—of in assimilation of the physical socioeconomic work of Italian engineer Vilfredo Pareto (1893-1912), as re-clothed in socioeconomic equilibrium defined via Gibbsian thermodynamic terms by American physical chemist Lawrence Henderson (1932-1945) in the Harvard sociology and business school departments, following WWII (1939-1945) or the passing of Henderson, depending on point of view:

“Most of the neglect of Pareto stems from the scientific limitations of subsequent generations of sociologist rather than from his irrelevance to their interests.”
— Talcott Parsons (1968), on reason fall-off of Harvard Pareto circle interest after WWII [1]

In other words, without an inspired physical chemist to lead the way, the Henderson-epicenter of famous influential Harvard Pareto circle peaked at 1945, past which, Henderson not having trained any physical chemists to carry on the project, the non physical science trained sociologists, economists, historians, business theorists, etc., were thus handicapped to the effect that continuation could only occur based on what had been said and published, the 1935 conclusion of which, according to Henderson, is the following very ripe, prolific, and great meaning embodying statement: [2]

“Another characteristic of many ideal systems [physical or social] that is, in general, indispensable in order that conditions shall be determinate is the establishment and use of some definition of equilibrium or some criterion of equilibrium, whether in the case of statical equilibrium or in the case of dynamical equilibrium. This criterion is often of such a character that some function like entropy or energy assumes a maximum or a minimum value or, as in the case of the derivatives or variations of such functions, vanishes. In the case of Pareto’s social system the definition of equilibrium takes a form that closely resembles the theorem of Le Chatelier in physical chemistry, which expresses a property of physico-chemical equilibrium, and which may be deduced from the work of Gibbs.”

American physical chemist, chemical engineer, and chemical thermodynamicist Frederick Rossini, with his 1950 Chemical Thermodynamics textbook and 1971 ‘Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World’ address, in particularly, has been the only known person to explicitly and independently carry forward what is suggestively outlined above by Henderson.

Those who are directly taught the chemical thermodynamics work of Gibbs, however, is a very selective group, chemical engineers mainly, in the curriculum of which, chemical thermodynamics (or chemical engineering thermodynamics) is the core course, infamously known as the "weeder course", of the degree. Physical chemists, in turn, absorb "the work of Gibbs", albeit in a softer format.

Other educational background baring subject accessibility limiting quotes include:

“It is interesting to note that socio-thermodynamics is only accessible to chemical engineers and metallurgists. These are the only people who know phase diagrams and their usefulness. It cannot be expected, in our society, that sociologists will appreciate the potential of these ideas.”
— Ingo Muller (2007), A History of Thermodynamics [3]

“Physical chemistry uses mathematical language, and it is a large part of my evangelistic attitude to suppose that much of developmental biology will someday have to be written in much the same language that physical chemists use.”
— Lionel Harrison (2008), The Shaping of Life [4]

Hmolscience
The following is a work in progress chronological listing of hmolscience applied physical chemists, in Hmolpedia, of note:

#	Person	Date	Description

	Gilbert Lewis	1925
	Lawrence Henderson	1932


	Georgi Gladyshev	1978



	Adrian Hough	2010

Science
The following is a work in progress listing of general science physical chemists, discussed within Hmolpedia, who did not explicitly apply physical chemistry to the humanities, but in most cases were either physical chemistry pioneers or at the boundary land of applying physical chemistry to physiological or biological (powered chnopsology) arena.

● Lionel Harrison

See also
● Hmolpedia: Categories

References
1. Lopreato, Joseph and Rusher, Sandra. (1983). “Vilfredo Pareto’s Influence on USA Sociology” (abs), Revue Europenne des Sciences Sociales, 21(65):69-122; in: Vilfredo Pareto: Critical Assessments of Leading Economists, Volume 3 (editors: John Wood and Michael McLure) (§74, pgs. 187-237). Taylor & Francis, 1999.
2. Henderson, Lawrence J. (1935). Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologists Interpretation (pg. 86). Harvard University Press.
3. Müller, Ingo. (2007). A History of Thermodynamics: the Doctrine of Energy and Entropy (DS) (pg. 164). Springer.
4. Harrison, Lionel G. (2011). The Shaping of Life: the Generation of Biological Pattern (pg. 105). Cambridge University Press.