HELP Pressure Change for equation without volume

AI Thread Summary
To determine the total pressure in a tank containing 5.0 atm of N2 and 10.0 atm of H2 after ammonia (NH3) formation, it is essential to recognize that pressure is proportional to the number of moles when volume and temperature remain constant. The reaction N2 + 3H2 → 2NH3 indicates that for every x moles of N2 reacted, 2x moles of NH3 are produced. Given that the final partial pressure of NH3 is 3.2 atm, it can be deduced that 2x equals 3.2 atm, leading to x being 1.6 atm. Thus, the total pressure in the tank at equilibrium is calculated to be 15 - 2x, resulting in a final total pressure of 12.8 atm.
Navygal
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
HELP! Pressure Change for equation without volume

Homework Statement



A tank is pressurized with 5.0 atm of N2 and 10.0 atm of H2. Ammonia (NH3) is formed. When the pressure finally remains constant, indicating that the reaction has proceeded as far as it will go, the partial pressure of ammonia is 3.2 atm. What is the total pressure in the tank assuming that neither the temperature nor the volume of the container have changed?

Homework Equations



PV=nRT??

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know how to go about this without using volume or number of moles. Is there another equation I should use??
Any help would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Assume the tank has volume V. You will see that the V cancels out in the end. (alternatively if you like using numbers instead of variables, just use an arbitrary volume like 1L, plug in the numbers and see what the answer is).
 


I agree with Ygg.. Assume volume and temperature are the same at beginning and end. Then the pressure is proportional to moles. The equation is N2+3H2 -> 2NH3. Assume this has an extent of x (x moles of N2 reacted). Starting moles N2=5, H2=10. Ending moles N2=5-x, H2=10-3x, NH3=2x. Total pressure at end = sum of three partials = 15-2x.
The problem gives you NH3= 3.2 atm at end = 2x. Total pressure at end= you solve it.
 
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