Chemistry; reaction rate - completion

AI Thread Summary
A first-order reaction is 17% complete after 30 minutes, leading to the calculation of the rate constant (k) as 0.006211 min-1. To determine the time required for the reaction to reach 80% completion, the concentration [A] is set to 0.2, indicating that 20% of the reactant remains. The calculated time for this completion is approximately 259 minutes. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly identifying the concentration values for accurate calculations in reaction kinetics. Understanding these concepts is crucial for success in chemistry exams.
General_Sax
Messages
445
Reaction score
0
Chemistry; reaction rate -- completion

Homework Statement


A first-order reaction is 17% complete after 30 min. How long after the start of the reaction will the reaction be 80% complete?


Homework Equations


ln[A] = ln[A0] - kt


The Attempt at a Solution



[A] = 0.83
[Ao] = 1.0
t = 30 min

k = ln(1/0.83) / 30 = 0.006211 min-1

t = ln(1.0/0.2) / 0.006211 = 259 min


This problem is on a practice exam for my upcoming midterm.

I'm not sure about my choices for [A].

When the reaction is completed the [A] = 0, is that right?

ie, [A] starts at 1.0 -- [A0] in this problem -- and goes to 0, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


oops, when I solved for t I used a different value for [A]

[A] = 0.2
 
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