Electrode Potential: Zinc-Copper E Cell & Plausibility

AI Thread Summary
A positive E cell value indicates that the electrochemical reaction is favorable due to the relationship between Gibbs free energy and cell potential. The equation ΔG^0 = -nFE^0_cell shows that a negative free energy change corresponds to a positive E cell, making the reaction plausible. This is rooted in thermodynamic conventions where ΔG^0 < 0 suggests that the reaction will proceed spontaneously. Additionally, the relationship ΔG^0 = -RT lnK implies that a negative ΔG^0 leads to a reaction quotient K greater than 1, indicating product formation is favored. Understanding these conventions clarifies the implications of electrode potentials in electrochemical cells.
Bladibla
Messages
357
Reaction score
1
When we work out the E cell of with the electrode potential values of Zinc and copper (for example) Why does a positive E cell value indicate that the reaction is plausible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Matter of convention.
 
- \Delta G^0 = work~done ~at~constant~potential=E^0_{cell} \Delta Q
\Delta Q = nF
\implies \Delta G^0 =-nFE^0_{cell}

Of course, now this translates to another convention : that a negative free energy change tells you that the reaction is plausible. To make this more intuitive, it may help to go a step further.

\Delta G^0 = -RT lnK
\Delta G^0 &lt; 0 \implies lnK &gt; 0 \implies K &gt; 1
 
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