Finding binding energy from equilibrium bond length

AI Thread Summary
The equilibrium bond length of the He dimer is 2.97 angstroms, and the interaction potential is defined by V(r) = (B/r^13) - (C/r^6) with specific values for B and C. The user attempted to calculate the binding energy by substituting the bond length into the potential equation but obtained a negative result, raising concerns about the stability of the dimer. To determine stability at room temperature (300K), the binding energy must be compared to kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Clarification on the interpretation of negative binding energy and its implications for stability is sought.
llabesab16
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
1. The equilibrium bond length of the He dimer is 2.97 angstroms. What is the binding energy in kJ/mol for this dimer? Would be dimer be stable at room temperature T= 300K (Hint: compare the binding energy to kT)



2. interaction potential for the dimer:

V(r) = (B/r^13)-(C/r^6), where B= 9.29 x 10^4 kJ(angstrom^13)(mol^-1) and C= 97.7 kJ (angstrom^6)(mol^-1)




3. I didn't know what to do. My guess was to plug the equilibrium bond length into the interaction potential equation, but this gave me a negative answer. I figured that my answer couldn't be negative if I had to compare the binding energy to kT. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps negative binding energy tells you something about stability?

--
methods
 
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