Find the integral rate equation of 1st order reaction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the integral rate equation for a first-order reaction with respect to A and zero-order with respect to B. The user initially presents their equation as ln[A0]/[A0]-v1x=kt but questions its accuracy compared to the provided answer, ln[A0]/[A0]-v1x=v1kt. Clarification is sought on the meaning of v1 and x, as well as the correct formulation of the integrated rate equation. The importance of showing detailed work for better understanding is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for precise definitions and step-by-step explanations in chemical kinetics.
avistein
Messages
48
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



The reaction v1A+v2B--->Products is 1st order wrt A and 0 order wrt B.If the reaction is started with [A0] and [B0] find the integral rate equation.

The Attempt at a Solution



I have got ln[A0]/[A0]-v1x=kt but answer is given as ln[A0]/[A0]-v1x=v1kt.Which one is right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please provide us with your work.
 
ln[A0]/[A]=kt is the integrated rate equation for 1st order reaction.where A0 is intitial conc at time=0 and A is conc left after time =t .Here v1x has been used and [A0]-v1x is left.so that becomes ln[A0]/[A0]-v1x=kt?
 
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are doing. I don't understand what v1 is or what x is. You need to show your work carefully, not reiterate what you wrote in the first post.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top