Where Did I Mess Up In Solving This?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeweliaHeart
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the equilibrium constant for the reaction A + B ↔ C + D, given the initial moles of reactants and the moles of product C produced at equilibrium. The user initially set up the equilibrium concentrations incorrectly by assuming that no moles of D were formed, which led to confusion in the calculation of K. It was pointed out that if 4 moles of C are produced, the amount of D must also be considered, as it cannot be zero. The correct approach requires including the formation of D in the equilibrium expression. Ultimately, the user realized their oversight in neglecting D's contribution to the equilibrium constant calculation.
JeweliaHeart
Messages
67
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For the reaction: A + B ↔ C + D

6.0 moles of A and 5.0 moles of B are mixed together in a suitable container. When equilibrium is reached, 4.0 moles of C are produced.

The equilibrium constant for this reaction is:

a. K = 1/8
b. K = 8
c. K = 30/16
d. K = 16/30

Homework Equations



K=[C][D]/[A]

The Attempt at a Solution



I set up the problem like this:


Initial Concentrations: [A] 6/x 5/x [C] 0 [D] 0

Change in Concentrations: [A] -4/x -4/x [C] +4/x [D] 0

Equlibirum Concentrations: [A] 2/x 1/x [C] 4/x [D] 0

I assigned the variables x myself:
x= volume of container

The reason I put 0 for D's concentration is b/c the problem did not say any amount of D was formed.

Therefore the equilibrium expression should look like this:
[4/x]/[2/x^2]
which further equates to 2x. I don't where I messed up or how to solve this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well if 4 moles of C are produced, how many moles of D are produced? Also, if if it were 0, then you would find that the equilibrium constant is zero by the formula for K and you could not just ignore it.
 
oh...duh *hits forhead*. Thanks so much. How silly of me to overlook that.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top