Is a first order reaction always slower than a second order reaction

AI Thread Summary
A first-order reaction is not always slower than a second-order reaction; it depends on the concentrations of the reactants involved. In general, second-order reactions have a rate that is proportional to the square of the concentration, while first-order reactions are directly proportional to concentration. When both reactant concentrations are less than 1, the squared concentration of a second-order reaction can result in a smaller rate compared to a first-order reaction. This relationship can be understood through collision theory, which considers how reactant concentrations affect reaction rates. Therefore, the comparison of reaction speeds is context-dependent.
lalaland432
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This is a concept question i was wondering.
in what instances would this be true and in what instances would this be false.
im in general chem 2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i no that when the reaction is of second order the rate is squared according to how much the factor of the reactant is increased by. The first order reaction increases by the same factor by how much the concentration increases by.
 
I guess the question wants you to think in terms of collision theory.
 
well, i played around with it and i know that this circumstance is true when both concentrations are less than 1.
a second reaction concentration squared of a fraction equals a smaller fraction. :/
 
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