Kc is the constant of equilibrum

  • Thread starter Thread starter STAii
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the equilibrium constant Kc for a chemical reaction, specifically addressing how changes in the stoichiometry of the reaction affect the value of Kc. Participants explore the relationship between Kc, free energy, and the implications of modifying the reaction equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the formula for Kc and questions the logic behind its behavior when the reaction equation is multiplied by a factor, suggesting that Kc should not change in a way that seems inconsistent.
  • Another participant corrects a detail in the modified reaction, indicating that the stoichiometric coefficients must be accurate for the discussion to proceed.
  • A participant introduces the relationship between free energy and equilibrium, suggesting that understanding this connection is crucial for grasping the behavior of Kc.
  • There is a clarification sought regarding whether the value of Kc is doubled or squared when the reaction is modified, indicating some confusion about the implications of changes in stoichiometry.
  • One participant elaborates on the concept of Gibbs free energy and its relation to Kc, explaining that doubling the number of moles on each side of the reaction affects the free energy and subsequently Kc.
  • A participant expresses a desire to understand the use of natural logarithms in the equation relating free energy to Kc, questioning why ln is preferred over log10.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of modifying the reaction equation for Kc, and there are competing views regarding the correct interpretation of changes in stoichiometry and their effects on the equilibrium constant.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the foundational knowledge of free energy and equilibrium constants among participants, which may affect their understanding of the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

Students learning about chemical thermodynamics, particularly those interested in the concepts of equilibrium and free energy in chemical reactions.

STAii
Messages
327
Reaction score
1
Kc is the constant of equilibrum for a certain chemical reaction.
For example, if the chemical reaction has the following formula :
A+2B->C+3D
Then Kc=([ C ].[ D ]3)/([ A ].[ B ]2)
(Where [ A ] means the molarity of the compound A)
This is what they are teaching us at least, but i find it not really logical, for may reasons, here is one.
suppose we multiply the whole formula by 2
2A+4B-->2C+6D
(the equation was edited after the notice of Mike)
The value of Kc will get squared, but this seems wrong since both fomulas are for the same reaction !

Anyone can explain what is happening please ?
Thanks in advance :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
That should be a 6D and not a 3D in your second reaction.

I suspect that to be your problem.
 
Have you been given the relation between free energy and equilibrium in your class? If not, it's all going to look like an arbitrary mystery; if you have, recall that K is specific for the reaction as written, and recognize that the free energy for the reaction as you have rewritten it for twice the reactants and products is also doubled.
 
Have you been given the relation between free energy and equilibrium in your class
Nop ! Can you please explain more ?
free energy for the reaction as you have rewritten it for twice the reactants and products is also doubled
As i see the value of Kc will be squared not doubled, is that what you mean ?
 
Welcome to the wonderful world of chemical thermodynamics --- jumping in in the middle and working backward probably isn't the best way to do this, but if you're willing to tolerate me pulling a few rabbits from hats, let's give it a try ----.

Given a chemical reaction

A + B + ... = M + N + ...,

we mean that the reactants A, etc. are in equilibrium with the products M, etc., and that the reaction is reversible (M + ... = A + ...).

The free energy change for the reaction is sum of the free energies of the products minus the sum of that for the reactants as the reaction is written (2 of this + 1 of that +3 of the other reacts to form 1 of something else plus 3 of some other else, or vice versa). Make sense so far?

Free energy is denoted with a bold-face, upper-case, F or G, sometimes italicized (I haven't got to the pt. I can drive the new forum editor quickly enough to avoid being logged off and losing everything), and is more strictly called the "Gibbs free energy."

Now for the rabbit from the hat --- the standard free energy change for the reaction as written is equal to the product of the gas constant, absolute temperature, and the natural log of the equilibrium constant,

del G = RTlnK,

where K is what you're asking about.

If you double the number of moles on each side, you double the free energy, which doubles the log of K, or squares K as you've apparently already figured out.

Still with me? We'll break for questions.
 
I "grabbed the start of the string", and will work on it for some time, then will come back for questions.
If you are wondering "Wow! this fast !", well i knew a little about energies ... etc from old times, so i will work on my old info, and what you just told me (G = R*T*ln(K)) to try to understand it.
...
As i am writting this i got just a little question, why the logarthim to the base (e), i mean why is it ln() and not log10 for example ? Any particular reason or it just comes this way ?

Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K