Error in Calculation of EDissolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aileen Gordola
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Error
AI Thread Summary
The calculation of Edissolution resulted in a negative value, despite the wet lab indicating an endothermic reaction through a temperature drop. The equation used was ∆Edissolution = Ccup∆Tcup/mass of salt. The discussion raises questions about interpreting the negative sign and its implications for classifying the reaction as endothermic or exothermic. Participants are asked to provide their calculations and insights on the nature of endothermic and exothermic reactions. Clarification on these points is essential for understanding the discrepancy in results.
Aileen Gordola
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I calculated the Edissolution of a reaction and resulted in a negative number. However, during the wet lab the reaction was clearly endothermic since there was a drop in temperature. I used the equation:

∆Edissolution = Ccup∆Tcup/mass of salt

What is the reason for the negative number? Would i consider the negative sign as a mere drop in temperature and not as a factor contributing as to wether the reaction is endothermic or exothermic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aileen Gordola said:
I calculated the Edissolution of a reaction and resulted in a negative number.
Can you show us this calculation, please?
Aileen Gordola said:
wether the reaction is endothermic or exothermic?
What do you know about endothermic and exothermic reactions?
 
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