How do the theoretical and actual masses of hydrocarbon reactions compare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KYJelly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Combustion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the comparison of theoretical and actual masses in hydrocarbon reactions, particularly in an online chemistry lab involving methane, ethane, and propane. The participant notes that while the theoretical masses of products for the first reaction match the actual masses, the same does not hold true for the second and third reactions, where the actual masses remain constant across all reactions. This raises questions about potential mass loss due to waste products and heat, or possible errors in the simulation. There is speculation that the consistent product masses might be due to a fixed amount of oxygen used in the reactions. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity on the experimental setup to resolve these discrepancies.
KYJelly
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm currently doing a grade 11 chemistry lab online...So, there's three reactions that we have to interpret...

1. CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O
2. 2 C2H6 + 7 O2 ---> 4 CO2 + 6 H2O
3. C3H8 + 5 O2 ---> 3 CO2 + 4 H2O

Now, when I add the theoretical masses of the products for the first reaction (I'll spare the math for now), they add up to mass of the actual masses of the products in the first reaction. However, when I sum the theoretical masses of the products in the second reaction, I don't get the same sum as the actual masses in the second or third reaction. I notice that the actual masses for all three reactions (methane, ethane, and propane) are exactly the same. Is this just because the mass loss in the actual reactions are attributed to waste products and heat, or am I doing something terribly incorrect? Or is there something wrong with my simulation.

PS - I can provide my math, but I feel as though the program is working fine and that it's just that all hydrocarbon reactions of this sort yield the same product mass no matter what.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your stoichiometric equations appear perfectly OK.

I don't know if the point that is troubling you is just that in order 1, 2, 3 per mole of carbon you have a lower then lower proportion of hydrogen. So in that order, for the same amount of CO2 produced you produce less then less water H2O. The first compound is CH4, you could say the second is equivalent to CH3. Along the series you have fewer C-H bonds and more C-C bonds
 
No, the point that is troubling to me is that there's always the same mass of products in each reaction in the online experiment. For example, CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H20 yields 292 grams of CO2 and 179 grams of water, and 2 C2H6 + 7 O2 ---> 4 CO2 + 6 H2O yields 292 grams of CO2 and 179 grams of water, and C3H8 + 5 O2 ---> 3 CO2 + 4H2O also yields 292 grams of CO2 and 179 grams of water vapour in the online experiment.
 
Well I can't say more without seeing this online chemistry that is you are trying. If you could post it all verbatim perhaps I could help. Maybe reaction was with a fixed amount of oxygen?
 
Yeah, the only thing that changes is the hydrocarbon gas. Methane, Ethane, Propane. But, the masses of CO2 and H2O (as products) don't change.
 
Maybe it's about a fixed amount of oxygen, or maybe there is a product elemental carbon as you had in another problem, but unless I see the original text I'm just guessing what this is about
 
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