How Do Stoichiometric Coefficients Affect Gibbs Free Energy Calculations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how stoichiometric coefficients influence Gibbs free energy calculations for the reaction N2(g) + 3H2(g) <--> 2NH3(g). Participants express confusion over calculating Gibbs free energy using different stoichiometric representations, leading to different equilibrium constants. Both methods yield valid results, but the choice of coefficients affects the equilibrium expression. It's emphasized that clarity in stoichiometry is crucial for accurate calculations and understanding. The conversation concludes with reassurance that both approaches are correct, pending the professor's specifications.
Puchinita5
Messages
178
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For the reaction N2(g) + 3H2(g) <---> 2NH3(g)

I am supposed to determine the equilibrium constant at 298K and 1 bar. We have been given a table that states that

for NH3(g):
\Delta_{r}G^{\Theta}= -16.45 kJ/mol

I know that
\Delta_{r}G^{\Theta}= \Sigma v G^{\Theta}_{product} - \Sigma v G^{\Theta}_{reactant}

where v is the stoichiometric coefficient.

But what is confusing me is that you could also write the equation as

1/2 N2(g) + (3/2)(g) <----> NH3(g)

so in the first case, the answer would be

(2*-16.45 kJ/mol) - ((1*0)+(3*0)) = -32.90 kJ/mol

But in the second case, the answer would be

(-16.45 kJ/mol) - (1/2*0 + 3/2 *0) = -16.45 kJ/mol

Since both equations should be valid, what answer is correct? I don't understand which one I should choose because they both look like the should be right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the two cases, the expression for the equilibrium constant will be different. In the first case K = [NH3]^2/[N2]

^3 whereas in the second case K = [NH3]/[N2]^(1/2)

^(3/2). This is why you always need to include a balanced reaction along with any equilibrium constant you provide.

 
Hey, I had the same concern. They are both right; it depends on the stoichiometry. The professor would have to specify which one he is looking for like he did last time.
 
Thanks guys! Did he specify last time? I must not have understood him. This was really confusing me, good to know that both are right! I feel better now. :)
 
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