Is it possible to burn methanol without O2

Thread starter abc007
Start date Dec 20, 2010
Tags

Methanol

AI Thread Summary

Burning methanol (CH3OH) using nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as an oxidant instead of oxygen (O2) is theoretically possible. The proposed reaction suggests that methanol reacts with NO2 to form methanol nitrite (CH3ONO) and nitric acid (HNO). However, the exact products may vary depending on reaction conditions and the presence of other factors. Further exploration of the chemistry of NO2 is recommended for a more comprehensive understanding. The feasibility of this reaction raises interesting questions about alternative oxidants in combustion processes.

Dec 20, 2010

abc007

Homework Statement

Is it possible to burn methanol by using NO2 as an Oxidant instead of using O2 and what will be the product?

Homework Equations

CH3OH + NO2 =====> ??

The Attempt at a Solution

CH3OH + NO2 =====> CH3ONO + HNO NOT sure

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 20, 2010

Borek

Mentor

Try to read wikipedia article on NO₂, it contains some hints.

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »