How Do You Calculate Expected Cell Voltage in Electrochemistry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leaf345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrochemistry
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the expected cell voltage in electrochemistry, the standard cell potential is determined by adding the reduction potentials of the half-reactions. For the reaction involving silver and copper, the standard voltage calculated was 0.46V. The Nernst equation is then applied, but clarification is needed on the value of n and the reaction quotient Q. In a second experiment with silver and iron, the calculated voltage was found to have an opposite sign compared to the observed voltage, raising questions about the accuracy of the calculations. Overall, understanding the correct application of the Nernst equation and the values for n and Q is crucial for accurate voltage predictions.
leaf345
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, I just did a lab on electrochem but we haven't started learning this in our lectures so I'm not too confident on it. One of the lab question asks us to calculate the expected cell voltage. From reading the textbook, this is what I did:
The reaction was 2Ag+ + Cu -> 2Ag + Cu2+
I added reduction potentials of Ag and Cu to get 0.46V for the standard voltage. Then I used the nersnt eq'n
E= 0.46 -(0.05915/n)*logQ
What I'm not sure about is...
We used 0.1 M AgNO3 and Cu(NO3)2, so would n be 2 or 0.2?
And would Q= [0.1 Cu2+][1]/[0.1 Ag+]^2*[1]=10?
Help would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, we did another cell that is giving me trouble too.
One 1/2 cell was:
Ag electrode
0.1 M AgNO3 solution

The other was:
Pt electrode
0.1 M Fe2+ and 0.1 M Fe3+

I think the overall redox rx'n was Ag+ + Fe2+ --> Fe3+ + Ag
so I calculated the expected cell voltage. But I get a value that is opposite to the sign of the voltage we observed.
What I did was
E=Eo -(0.05915/n)*logQ
where Eo= 0.8-0.77 because that is the difference between the redox potentials of Ag and Fe.
n=1 electron
Q= [Fe3+]/[Fe2+]*[Ag+] = 0.1/(0.1*0.1)=10
so E= negative something

Am I doing this one correct?
 
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