Effect of Temperature on Chemical Equilibrium

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the effect of temperature on chemical equilibrium, particularly how it relates to the Arrhenius Equation and Le Chatelier's Principle. Participants explore the implications of temperature changes on equilibrium constants and the mathematical relationships involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that increasing temperature favors the endothermic process, while decreasing temperature favors the exothermic process, referencing Le Chatelier's Principle.
  • The same participant presents a mathematical argument using the Arrhenius Equation, suggesting that the equilibrium constant K[c] does not depend on temperature, which they believe contradicts Le Chatelier's Principle.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the mathematical reasoning, indicating that the expression for the ratio of rate constants should be interpreted differently, suggesting a misunderstanding in the exponentiation.
  • A third participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by the second participant, indicating that the explanation helped them understand the topic better.
  • There is a mention of difficulties in formatting mathematical expressions using LaTeX, indicating a need for clarity in communication of mathematical ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the resolution of the paradox regarding temperature's effect on equilibrium constants. There are competing views on the interpretation of the mathematical relationships involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding the correct application of mathematical expressions and the implications of the Arrhenius Equation in the context of chemical equilibrium.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying chemical equilibrium, particularly those interested in the mathematical aspects and conceptual implications of temperature changes in reactions.

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
Hi guys I am a student of AP Chemistry. I am trying to understand the effect of temperature on equilibrium. I know that under the change of temperature, the equilibrium will shift to favor the endothermic process if heat is added and vice versa. But employing the Arrhenius Equation, I see a necessary concentration.
<br /> <br /> Suppose that `&amp;rlhar;`(A, B);<br /> print(`output redirected...`); # input placeholder<br /> A &amp;rlhar; B<br /> According to the definition of rate laws,<br /> Rate*forward = k[A][A];<br /> and<br /> Rate*reverse = k<b><b>;<br /> <br /> <br /> where <br /> k; is the rate constant <br /> [X]; is the respective concentration of substance X.<br /> <br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Also, according to the Arrhenius Equation, for any reaction,<br /> k = A*exp(-E[a]/RT);where <br /> A; is a constant<br /> E[a]; is the activation energy<br /> R is the gas constant<br /> T is the temperature at which the reaction<br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> According to the definition of the equilibrium constant,<br /> <br /> K[c] = k[A]/k<b> and k[A]/k<b> = A[1]*exp(-E[a1]/RT)/(A[2]*exp(-E[a2]/RT)) and A[1]*exp(-E[a1]/RT)/(A[2]*exp(-E[a2]/RT)) = A[1]*exp(E[a2]-E[a1])/A[2];<br /> Therefore the K[c]; does not depend on T, which contradicts with Le Chatelier&#039;s Principle!<br /> How can I resolve this paradox, or what is the fault with my logic?<br /> <br /> </b></b></b></b>
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Bipolarity said:
Hi guys I am a student of AP Chemistry. I am trying to understand the effect of temperature on equilibrium. I know that under the change of temperature, the equilibrium will shift to favor the endothermic process if heat is added and vice versa. But employing the Arrhenius Equation, I see a necessary concentration.
Suppose that <br /> `&amp;rlhar;`(A, B);<br /> print(`output redirected...`); # input placeholder<br /> A &amp;rlhar; B<br /> According to the definition of rate laws,<br /> &gt; Rate*forward = k[A][A];<br /> and<br /> &gt; Rate*reverse = k<b><b>;<br /> <br /> <br /> where <br /> &gt; k;<br /> is the rate constant <br /> [X]<br /> is the respective concentration of substance X.<br /> <br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Also, according to the Arrhenius Equation, for any reaction,<br /> / E[a]\<br /> k = A exp|- ----|<br /> \ RT /<br /> where <br /> <br /> A<br /> is a constant<br /> E[a]<br /> is the activation energy<br /> R is the gas constant<br /> T is the temperature at which the reaction<br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> According to the definition of the equilibrium constant,<br /> <br /> / E[a1]\ / E[a1]\ <br /> A[1] exp|- -----| A[1] exp|- -----| <br /> k[A] k[A] \ RT / \ RT / <br /> K[c] = ---- and ---- = ----------------- and ----------------- = <br /> k<b> k<b> / E[a2]\ / E[a2]\ <br /> A[2] exp|- -----| A[2] exp|- -----| <br /> \ RT / \ RT / <br /> <br /> A[1] exp(E[a2] - E[a1])<br /> -----------------------<br /> A[2] <br /> Therefore the <br /> K[c]<br /> does not depend on T, which contradicts with Le Chatelier&#039;s Principle!<br /> How can I resolve this paradox, or what is the fault with my logic? </b></b></b></b>


It's your maths, you are forgetting that eA/eB is eA-B not eA/B. :smile:
 
What?? How were you able to read that?? I can't get LaTeX to work... I'm new to this sorry. I use Maple but don't know how to translate it to LaTeX.

In any case, thank you SO MUCH FOR YOUR POST! IT FINALLY MAKES SENSE!

Regards,

BiP
 
LatTeX here is used just for formulas, besides, what you wrote was not in LaTeX. See our LaTeX guide.
 

Similar threads

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