How Does Electrochemistry Calculate the Solubility of AgI?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the solubility of AgI using electrochemistry and the Nernst equation. The standard potential of the cell is given as +0.9509 V, and the user is attempting to find the natural log of the solubility (ln s) for AgI. There is confusion regarding the correct value for the standard reduction potential of AgI, which is noted to be -0.15 V. The user mistakenly calculates a value of -18.51, which is identified as a decimal log rather than the natural log. Clarification on the correct logarithmic calculations is needed to resolve the issue.
koomanchoo
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
hey i seem to be having a lot of trouble qith this question may i get some help?
The standard potential of the cell below is + 0.9509 V at 25 oC. Calculate the solubility, normally called s, of AgI (Note: Enter the natural log of s (ln s) as your answer)

Ag|AgI(s)|AgI(aq)|Ag

i'm using nernst equation and found the standard potential for Ag+,Ag to be 0.7991V

i am using Eo as 0.7991 and E as 0.9509 and rearanging the equation to find the solubility as LnS.. the correct answer is suppose to be -18.51.. where i am going wrong? please help.
thanks

n.b standard reduction potential of AgI(s) is -.15V
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
IIRC -18.51 is not a natural log of the AgI solubility product - it's decimal log.
 
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