How Does a 10°C Temperature Increase Double the Rate of a Slow Reaction?

AI Thread Summary
A 10°C increase in temperature does not necessarily double the kinetic energy of particles, but it can significantly increase the reaction rate due to the effect on activation energy. The collision theory explains that more molecules will have sufficient energy to surpass the activation energy barrier at higher temperatures. This results in a greater proportion of effective collisions, which can lead to a doubling of the reaction rate. The relationship between temperature and reaction rates is crucial in understanding how kinetic energy distribution affects molecular interactions. Thus, even a modest temperature increase can dramatically enhance the speed of slow reactions.
Sisyphus
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
We are currently studying reactions in terms of kinetic energy, reaction rates, collision theory, and so on.

There is a question on my assignment that is kind of boggling me right now:

An increase in temperature of 10 C rarely doubles the kinetic energy of particles, and hence the number of collisions is not doubled. Yet, this temperature increase may be enough to double the rate of a slow reaction. How can this be explained?

I'm not sure if it has to do with the wording of the question, but I'm really not getting this question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aA+bB -> cC + dD
use abcd in relation to temp to explain the problem
 
Think about the rate of a reaction in relevance to the activation energies of the respective reaction. At a particular temperature and kinetic energy distribution of the molecules, more or less these molecules may have enough energy in surpassing the activation energy.

So if a reaction rate is fast, at a particular starting equilibrium temperature, what does this tell you about the proportion of the molecules which have enough energy surpass the activation energy?

I've given you more than a big hint for this problem,
 
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