Exergonic Reactions: Polar Molecule Stability?

AI Thread Summary
Exergonic reactions typically produce polar molecules, which may seem favorable due to their lower energy states. However, the stability of these polar molecules, such as water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), is influenced by molecular geometry and electron distribution. While H2O is polar and stable, CO2 is nonpolar despite being a product of combustion. The discussion raises questions about the general stability of polar molecules and the criteria for predicting reaction products based on stability. Understanding these concepts can help clarify the nature of products formed in exergonic reactions.
nobahar
Messages
482
Reaction score
2
Hello!
Quick question, but it's really bugging me!
Exergonic reactions often yield polar molecules as the products (e.g. combustion of methane). Are these polar molecules 'favourable' because the electrons are spending more time in a lower energy region; or is this wrong, and there's a different reason why polar molecules are more stable?
All responses appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Give us an example of the polar molecules you are referring to regarding the combustion of methane. CO2 and H2O? One is polar and one isn't...
 
Ohhhh, CO2 isn't polar because the 'pull' of the oxygen atoms is 'balanced'. So I'm guessing polar molecules are not stable more generally? Why would they be, I suppose...
In that case, is there a method of determining the most likely products of a reaction, given that they attempt to form the most stable products?
Thanks for the reply, and any further ones. :smile:
 
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