How Do You Calculate the Equilibrium Constant from Free Energy of Formation?

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the equilibrium constant for the reaction 2NH3(g) --> N2(g) + 3H2(g) at 298 K, the standard molar free energy of formation for NH3(g) is used, which is -16.45 kJ·mol–1. The free energy change (ΔG) for the reaction is calculated by multiplying the free energy of formation by 2, resulting in -32.90 kJ or -32,900 J. The equation ΔG = -RT ln K is applied, where R is 8.3145 J/(mol·K) and T is 298 K. After correcting a calculation error involving the use of the calculator, the equilibrium constant K is determined to be 1.71E-6. This demonstrates the importance of careful calculation in determining equilibrium constants from free energy values.
fileen
Messages
66
Reaction score
4
[SOLVED] free energy of formation

Homework Statement



Consider the reaction
2NH3(g) --> N2(g) + 3H2(g)
If the standard molar free energy of formation of NH3(g) at 298 K is –16.45 kJ·mol–1, calculate the equilibrium constant for this reaction at 298 K.
The correct answer is 1.71E-6

Homework Equations


DG= - RTlnK


The Attempt at a Solution


so, if the equation is for two moles NH3(g) then one would multiply the given DG (-16.45) by 2. Also, I converted from KJ to J giving me -32900. The equation given is for the reverse process of formation, so, do I reverse the sign of DG? I tried it both ways and got the wrong answer. In fact, I get huge numbers compared to the correct answer.
I used 8.3145 for R and 298 for T.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey,

Seems your right on track. Not sure what happened to your calculation if you tried reversing the free energy.

dG= 2*-16450 j/mol
= 32900 j/mol(reversed)

32900 j/mol = -8.314*298K * ln K
K=1.71e^-6
 
haha I was pressing the anti log on my calculator by accident instead of e^x. Thank you for your help. You know youve been studying to long when...
 
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