What is the Average C-H Bond Energy in Methane?

AI Thread Summary
The average C-H bond energy in methane (CH4) is determined through the dissociation of the molecule into gaseous carbon and hydrogen atoms, represented by the equation CH4 (g) → C(g) + 4H(g). Using carbon in the gas state prevents the inclusion of unrelated energy from converting C(g) to C(s), which would inaccurately inflate the bond energy calculation. Bond energy specifically refers to the energy required to break the bonds, independent of the standard states of the elements involved. It is important to note that hydrogen exists as H2(g) in its standard state, but for bond energy calculations, the focus remains solely on the dissociation process. Understanding these principles clarifies the accurate measurement of bond energy in methane.
Janiceleong26
Messages
276
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


"By means of a balanced chemical equation, including state symbols, illustrate the term average C-H bond energy in methane."
Ans: CH4 (g) -> C(g) + 4H(g)
Average bond energy = +x/4 kj/mol

Why C (g) ? Why is the state of C gas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To avoid including unrelated C(g) → C(s) reaction energy in the C-H bond.

Bond energy is the energy required to dissociate the bond itself, if the final product would be C(s) you would not deal with just a bond dissociation.
 
Borek said:
To avoid including unrelated C(g) → C(s) reaction energy in the C-H bond.

Bond energy is the energy required to dissociate the bond itself, if the final product would be C(s) you would not deal with just a bond dissociation.

Sorry I'm abit lost..what do you mean to avoid unrelated C(g)-> C(s) ?
So does it mean that, naturally, when CH4 is broken.. The carbon formed is in gas state? But I thought it is more stable for C to exists as C(graphite) ?
 
No, it doesn't mean carbon exists in the gas state (at least not in typical for us temperatures and pressures). But if you would use the enthalpy of the reaction CH4(g) → C(s) + 4H(g) to calculate energy of the C-H bond, you would include energy of converting carbon from gas state into the solid state (C(g) → C(s), actually just a reversed sublimation), making the calculated energy much higher than it really is.

Please remember bond energy has nothing to do with the standard states of the elements involved. It is not only a problem with carbon, hydrogen in standard state doesn't exist as H(g), but as H2(g). But when talking about the bond energy all we care about is the amount of energy required to break the bond, we don't care about what happens to products. And when all you do with gaseous CH4 is breaking all four bonds, what you get is a gaseous mixture of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Yes, they will react/condense after that, but these are separate processes that we don't care about when determining the bond energy.
 
Borek said:
No, it doesn't mean carbon exists in the gas state (at least not in typical for us temperatures and pressures). But if you would use the enthalpy of the reaction CH4(g) → C(s) + 4H(g) to calculate energy of the C-H bond, you would include energy of converting carbon from gas state into the solid state (C(g) → C(s), actually just a reversed sublimation), making the calculated energy much higher than it really is.

Please remember bond energy has nothing to do with the standard states of the elements involved. It is not only a problem with carbon, hydrogen in standard state doesn't exist as H(g), but as H2(g). But when talking about the bond energy all we care about is the amount of energy required to break the bond, we don't care about what happens to products. And when all you do with gaseous CH4 is breaking all four bonds, what you get is a gaseous mixture of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Yes, they will react/condense after that, but these are separate processes that we don't care about when determining the bond energy.
I see, thanks thanks.:smile:
 
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