Solving the Mystery of Deriving O2 Concentration in H2/O2 Mixture

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the concentration of oxygen [O2] in a hydrogen and oxygen mixture within a spherical vessel, resulting in the formula [O2] = P / 3RT. This derivation relies on defining 'n' as the moles of oxygen in a stoichiometric mixture of 2H2 + O2. The confusion arises from the ideal gas law, which states p = nRT, and how it applies to mixtures. The factor of '3' in the equation is explained by the total moles of gas in the stoichiometric reaction. Understanding these relationships clarifies the derivation of the oxygen concentration.
Tigrisje
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
In a spherical vessel with a hydrogen H2 and oxygen mixture O2 it is stated in a problem that we can derive that the concentration of oxygen [O2] can be derived to be:

P / 3RT. With P the total pressure, R the gas constant en T temperature?

How on Earth is this possible? I thought the ideal gas law stated that p = n R T (with n the concentration per unit volume). Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tigrisje said:
In a spherical vessel with a hydrogen H2 and oxygen mixture O2 it is stated in a problem that we can derive that the concentration of oxygen [O2] can be derived to be:

P / 3RT. With P the total pressure, R the gas constant en T temperature?

How on Earth is this possible? I thought the ideal gas law stated that p = n R T (with n the concentration per unit volume). Any help?

It would depend on how you define 'n'. It is usually defined as total moles of gas. In this case it is a mixture of H2 and O2. If we let n = moles of oxygen AND we assume that the mixture is stoichiometric (ie. 2H2 + O2) you get the result you posted.

See if you can rearrange the general equation, n = PV/RT into a concentration (moles per liter), concentration = P/3RT. If the general gas law only defines the system for all gases, where does that '3' come from?
 
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