Chemical Kinetics - Concentration/time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a chemical kinetics problem involving the calculation of concentration over time for a first-order reaction. Participants explore the mathematical interpretation of the natural logarithm in the context of the reaction equation and express confusion regarding the steps to solve the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a first-order reaction equation and seeks clarification on the proper steps to calculate the concentration of reactant [A] after a given time.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the equation, stating that the ratio of concentrations can be expressed as an exponential function.
  • Some participants express frustration over perceived condescension and unclear communication regarding logarithmic properties.
  • There is a disagreement about the interpretation of the logarithmic equation, with some asserting that the natural log should be applied to the ratio directly, while others suggest a misunderstanding of logarithmic properties.
  • A participant mentions that they received help from a professor and fellow student, indicating that they found the forum discussion unhelpful.
  • Another participant criticizes the initial poster for not conducting sufficient independent research before asking for help.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity of the mathematical explanation and the appropriateness of the initial poster's approach. There is no consensus on the best way to interpret the logarithmic equation or the level of assistance expected from the forum.

Contextual Notes

Participants note confusion regarding the notation used in the logarithmic equation, which may have contributed to misunderstandings. The discussion also highlights varying levels of mathematical proficiency among participants.

ohms law
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
My textbook (Burdge, Chemistry, 2nd edition) is pretty vague mathematically when it comes to calculating the examples, so I'm a bit confused about solving this example problem.

The equation is fairly straightforward:
[itex]ln{[A]_{t}/[A]_{0}}=-kt[/itex]

The 14.4 problem statement is (paraphrased):

2a -> b
[itex]k = 7.5 x 10^{-3}s^{-1}[/itex] (@ 110°c)
[A] = 2.25M,
What is [A] after 2.0 min?

So, 2.0 min = 120 sec

[itex]ln{[A]_{t}/2.25M}=-(7.5 x 10^{-3}s^{-1})(120s)[/itex]
The answer given is 0.91M. I could really use the proper steps to get there.

The thing that's really not clear is whether you take the natural log of each quotient value separately, or whether you divide the quotient and then take the natural log of that... and, then I'm getting my Properties of Natural Logs all confused while working the problem, so... I'm confused. Help, please?!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
To make it as unambiguous as possible:

[tex]ln\Big(\frac{[A]_t}{[A]_0}\Big) = -kt[/tex]

which is equivalent to

[tex]\frac{[A]_t}{[A]_0} = e^{-kt}[/tex]

You better work on your math, I guess the book assumes some proficiency in dealing with simple calculations. After all it is a chemistry textbook, not a math textbook.
 
You have the same communication problem as the book does, apparently.
I'm in Calculus 2, and I've gotten straight A's in all of my math classes, so please try not to be a condescending ***.

[tex]ln\Big(\frac{X_1}{Y_1}\Big) \neq \Big(\frac{lnX_2}{lnY_2}\Big)[/tex]

So, you're not really being clear at all.
 
It appears to be a first-order reaction and therefore your equation is wrong as written. Look at this reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_equation

for first-order reaction.

Also, if you're a chem major, make sure and take DEs before p-Chem.
 
Last edited:
ohms law said:
[tex]ln\Big(\frac{X_1}{Y_1}\Big) \neq \Big(\frac{lnX_2}{lnY_2}\Big)[/tex]

No idea where you got it from, it is not something I have stated and I don't see how it is related to the problem - but then apparently I don't know what your problem is. From your description I could only guess you were confused by the fact your equations are written without parentheses so it is not clear whether they mean ln(At)/A0 or ln(At/A0). What I wrote is a correct formula for the first order reaction, if it doesn't help - please elaborate where the problem is.
 
Borek said:
No idea where you got it from, it is not something I have stated and I don't see how it is related to the problem - but then apparently I don't know what your problem is. From your description I could only guess you were confused by the fact your equations are written without parentheses so it is not clear whether they mean ln(At)/A0 or ln(At/A0). What I wrote is a correct formula for the first order reaction, if it doesn't help - please elaborate where the problem is.

You gave:
[tex]ln\Big(\frac{[A]_t}{[A]_0}\Big) = -kt[/tex]

Which, if you look at my first post above, I had already provided.

So, my question was, as I stated (if you had bothered to read instead of simply throwing insults about your assumption of my math skills), does that mean the natural log of the ratio, or the natural log of each rate and then dividing them. It turns out to be the latter, which you hinted at with your "which is equivalent to" response, but the insults and general obfuscation (nevermind the sloppy math notation) hid that from me.

I ended up getting help from my professor and a fellow student on this, so... no big deal, I guess. You guys really disappointed me in this thread, though.
 
This forum is meant to ask the help to when you tried even last ditch effort in your power (asking teachers, fellow mates, brainstorming, google, wikipedia, etc.). I might say I am disappointed that you asked your doubt without investigating it yourself.

Most of these people, excluding me, already had their share of problems, so they don't need yours to solve. But still they do it. So please at least don't disrespect them by saying "You guys disappointed me".
 
you're confused about the properties of logarithms and you're disappointed in US?
 
Nice attitude there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K