Chemical Equilibrium and Probability

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the equilibrium amounts of H2O, D2O, and DHO in the reaction H2O + D2O <-> 2DHO. The initial amounts are 2.0 mol of H2O, 1.0 mol of D2O, and 2.0 mol of DHO. The calculations provided initially yield incorrect totals for hydrogen and deuterium, indicating a misunderstanding of the total moles in the system. The correct approach suggests using the total of 5 moles to determine the equilibrium concentrations. The final recommendation is to multiply the probabilities by 5 moles instead of 10 for accurate results.
flybynight
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I am looking at this equilibrium:
H2O + D2O <-> 2DHO
(D = Deuterium)
I have 2.0 mol of H2O, 1.0 mol of D2O and 2.0 mol of DHO.
What are the equilibrium amounts of each of the molecules?

What I tried:
6 mol of H, 4 mol of D
H2O: P(X=H) & P(Y=H) = 9/25
D2O: P(X=D) & P(Y=D) = 4/25
HDO: P(X=D) & P(Y=H) + P(X=H) & P(Y=D) = 12/25

Moles of H2O: 9/25 * 10 = 3.6 mol
Moles of D2O: 4/25 * 10 = 1.6 mol
Moles of DHO: 12/25 * 10 = 4.8 mol

However, that makes 12 mol H and 8 mol D. I know I probably should have divided somewhere, but I don't know where.

Thanks,
Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
flybynight said:
Moles of H2O: 9/25 * 10 = 3.6 mol
Moles of D2O: 4/25 * 10 = 1.6 mol
Moles of DHO: 12/25 * 10 = 4.8 mol

It should be prob * 5 moles, since you started with 2 mol H2O + 1 mol D2O + 2 mol DHO = 5 moles.
 
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...
Back
Top