Change in Enthaply and Activation Energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In the discussion regarding the relationship between enthalpy change and activation energy for exothermic reactions, it is established that the forward activation energy (Ea(fwd)) can indeed be less than the enthalpy change (ΔrH). This occurs because ΔrH is negative for exothermic reactions, while Ea(fwd) is inherently positive. The confusion arises from the interpretation of "magnitude," which clarifies the book's assertion that Ea(fwd) can be less than ΔrH in absolute terms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics principles, specifically exothermic and endothermic reactions.
  • Familiarity with activation energy concepts in chemical kinetics.
  • Knowledge of enthalpy change (ΔrH) and its implications in chemical reactions.
  • Basic grasp of reaction coordinate diagrams illustrating activation energy.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of reaction coordinate diagrams to visualize activation energy and enthalpy changes.
  • Explore the relationship between activation energy and reaction rates in chemical kinetics.
  • Investigate the implications of negative enthalpy changes in exothermic reactions.
  • Learn about the Arrhenius equation and its role in understanding activation energy.
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals in the field of chemical kinetics who seek to deepen their understanding of the relationship between activation energy and enthalpy changes in exothermic reactions.

student34
Messages
639
Reaction score
21

Homework Statement



For a reaction that is exothermic in the forward direction, can the activation energy Ea(fwd) ever be less than the enthalpy change?

Homework Equations



Endothermic equation: Ea(rev) = Ea(fwd) - deltarH

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
The answer in the book has "yes", but I don't know how this can be true.

Since it's an exothermic reaction, deltarH is negative. And as far as I know, the forward activation energy must be positive. Is it possible that the book meant magnitude? If so, then I could understand why they gave that answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
student34 said:
Is it possible that the book meant magnitude?

That would be my understanding.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: student34
Borek said:
That would be my understanding.
:smile: Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
75K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K