Degrees of freedom in a reacting system

Thread starter gfd43tg
Start date May 12, 2014
Tags

Degrees Degrees of freedom System

AI Thread Summary

In a reacting system, solid CaCO3 and solid CaO are classified as different phases because they do not form a solid solution, despite both being solids. This classification is similar to how oil and water represent two distinct liquid phases. The distinction arises from the fact that each solid has different chemical properties and compositions. Understanding phase behavior is crucial in thermodynamics and reaction kinetics. Therefore, recognizing separate phases is essential for accurate analysis in chemical systems.

May 12, 2014

gfd43tg

Gold Member

ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1399874901.695860.jpg

ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1399874923.745056.jpg

Hello
I am confused in part b why they classify solid CaCO3 and solid CaO as two different phases. They are both solids, which is one phase

Physics news on Phys.org

May 14, 2014

Chestermiller

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Insights Author

2024 Award

Unless they form a solid solution, they represent separate two solid phases. This is analogous to oil and water forming two liquid phases.

Chet

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »