Chemistry Electrode potentials question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of electrode potentials in electrochemistry. The potential at an electrode when placed in solution is expressed as E = E° - (R·T/F)·log_e(Q_surface), where E° is the standard electrode potential and Q_surface is the reaction quotient. Once equilibrium is reached, the potential stabilizes to E_eq = E° - (R·T/F)·log_e(K), with surface activities matching those in the bulk solution. If the system maintains a constant reaction quotient, the potential is given by E_constant = E° - (R·T/F)·log_e(Q_constant). Additionally, it is clarified that a second electrode is necessary solely for measuring the potential difference between the two electrodes.
Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1
Am I right to think that the potential established at an electrode immediately when placed in solution is given by

E = E° - R \cdot T \cdot log_e(Q_{surface})

where the potential E of the electrode results from the standard electrode potential (E°) of the reaction and the reaction quotient Qsurface at the electrode surface.

Then, once equilibrium is reached (usually fairly quickly for potential determining equilibria), we get a steady value of potential established, which is given by

E_{eq} = E° - R \cdot T \cdot log_e(K)

Noting also that, once equilibrium conditions are established, the value of activities or concentrations at the electrode surface will be the same as their values in the bulk solution.

If the conditions of the system are held constant at a certain reaction quotient Qconstant instead of allowed to go to equilibrium, then the potential established is always

E_{constant} = E° - R \cdot T \cdot log_e(Q_{constant})

Is this a correct understanding? And if this potential will be established on its own, is it correct to say that the only need for another electrode to join the first one is so that the difference in potentials can be measured (i.e. Ecell=E(Electrode 1)-E(Electrode 2))?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Small modification to all my equations above. Instead of

- R \cdot T

I should have

- \frac{R \cdot T}{F}

Where F is the Faraday constant.
 
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