Chemistry An exercise about chemical equilibrium

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a chemical equilibrium problem where the user's results do not match the provided corrections. A key issue identified is the failure to exponentiate the concentration of moles in the equilibrium expression. Additionally, there is confusion regarding the state of nitrogen monoxide (NO), which is incorrectly listed as a solid, suggesting unrealistic temperature conditions. The mention of NOBr's boiling point further complicates the scenario. Clarifying these points is essential for resolving the discrepancies in the user's answers.
samy4408
Messages
62
Reaction score
9
Homework Statement
my answer is an image in the post
Relevant Equations
no particular equations
Hello i am trying to solve a problem set about chemical equilibrium , the issue is that my results don't correspond to the correction . can someone tell me what is wrong with my answer , thanks
here is the problem and his correction :
1649722814871.png


here is my answer :
1649722980746.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that you forgot to exponentiate the concentration of mols, that is:

$$ k = \frac{[NO]^2[Br_2]}{[NOBr]^2} $$
 
  • Like
Likes samy4408 and DrClaude
that^^^

Strange that the question lists NO as a solid. That would mean temperature below -164°C, at the same time NOBr boils at 15°C, so it would be solid as well. Doesn't make much sense.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top