Delta G and equalibrium constant question

  • Thread starter Thread starter paulnz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Delta
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG) and the equilibrium constant (K) for a specific reaction at 298 K. The initial confusion arises from the lack of information on the amounts of reactants and products needed to determine K. Participants suggest using the equation ΔG = ΔH - TΔS to find the standard free energy change, emphasizing the importance of standard free energies of formation for each species involved. Clarifications are provided on how to apply these equations correctly, particularly in relation to the reactants and products. The conversation concludes with a confirmation that the approach is on the right track.
paulnz
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The equation and data to which the question refers is in the attachment. I am just trying to do part (a) of the question at the moment:

Calculate ΔG and K, the equilibrium constant, for this reaction at 298 K.

Homework Equations


I would have thought that I would need to use the equation ΔG=-RTln K, but I am unsure how to find K, the equilibrium constant, because I am not given the amounts of the reactants or products.


The Attempt at a Solution



Perhaps there is a way to solve the problem using an equation I am not aware of? And I am not sure how to use the data given to solve the problem, if in fact it is needed for question (a) I have no idea.

 

Attachments

  • delta g and constant.jpg
    delta g and constant.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 507
Physics news on Phys.org
How is the standard free energy of formation of a species related to its standard enthalpy of formation, standard entropy of formation, and standard temperature 298? If you know the free energy of formation of each reactant and each product, how do you calculate the standard free energy change for the reaction?

If you can't answer these two questions, you need to go back to your textbook and find out.

Chet
 
Thanks, that gave me the direction I needed to go in.

I believe that I use the equation:
\Delta _{f}G^{o}=\Delta _{r}H^{o} - T\Delta _{r}S^{o}

and take the reactant values from the product? ie:

\Delta _{r}G^{o}=\Delta _{f}G^{o}(CuO)-(\Delta _{f}G^{o}(Cu)+\frac{1}{2}\Delta _{f}G^{o}(\frac{1}{2}O_{2}))
 
Last edited:
paulnz said:
Thanks, that gave me the direction I needed to go in.

I believe that I use the equation:
\Delta _{f}G^{o}=\Delta _{r}H^{o} - T\Delta _{r}S^{o}

and take the reactant values from the product? ie:

\Delta _{r}G^{o}=\Delta _{f}G^{o}(CuO)-(\Delta _{f}G^{o}(Cu)+\frac{1}{2}\Delta _{f}G^{o}(\frac{1}{2}O_{2}))

You have the right idea. Just one thing: lose the Δ's in your first equation, and, on the right hand side of your second equation.

Chet
 
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