Is it possible to have an "Eternal reaction" by mixing the products?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gggnano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mixing Reaction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of whether it is possible to create an "eternal reaction" by mixing the products of two separate chemical reactions. Participants explore the implications of thermodynamics, energy landscapes, and chemical equilibria in relation to this idea.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a hypothetical scenario involving two reactions that produce four products, suggesting that mixing these products could regenerate the original reactants and create a continuous cycle.
  • Another participant emphasizes the role of thermodynamics, stating that systems tend to settle in the lowest energy state and require external energy to move away from equilibrium.
  • A participant questions the implications of temperature changes in the system and whether external energy is necessary for the reactions to occur again.
  • One participant introduces the concept of chemical oscillating reactions, referencing classical experiments like iodine clocks, noting that while concentrations may oscillate, they ultimately reach equilibrium.
  • Several participants discuss the equilibrium state of isolated systems, asserting that once equilibrium is reached, the system remains there unless disturbed.
  • Another participant proposes a specific reaction involving water dissociation, questioning its relevance to the original scenario and suggesting that the initial description may have been overly complicated.
  • Further elaboration on a series of reactions involving HCl, Na, and K is presented, with a focus on the reactivity of the elements and the concept of detailed balance in chemical reactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of an eternal reaction, with some arguing that equilibrium prevents such a cycle, while others explore the potential for oscillating reactions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the possibility of continuous reactions based on the proposed scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of energy input for reactions to proceed and the concept of equilibrium, but there are unresolved assumptions about the specific conditions and reactants involved in the proposed scenarios.

gggnano
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
In other words: if you mix the products of 4 different reactants so that the result is the reactants...I will explain...
So this is a very simple concept but I am not explaining it well:

Let's say you have 4 reactants in 2 different reactions (apologies: the symbols I am using do NOT exist, other than the "C" symbol, I just can't find real elements so that I am using just alphabet symbols as an allegory to show my point) , the reactions are separated:

1. Step one: Reaction
reactant A + reactant B -> product C and product D
(this is the first reaction, which produces C and D)

2. Step two: Another reaction between different reactants:
reactant E + reactant F -> product G and product H
(this is a completely different reaction that produces G and H)

3.
Now since you have all 4 products C,D,G,H from both reactions let's assume that once you mix G + C you end up with A and B and once you mix D+H you have E and F. Since you have A, B, E, F with the same mass (law of conservation of mass...) this means you can start the whole process since the very beginning (step one) and the cycle continues ad infintum?

What am I missing and why is this not infinite? Is the issue that the Gibbs free energy gets decreased ? Is the problem that you need to do "work" by moving the mass of the reactants so that they can react again and thus you gain no energy? Is it that you need oxygen or whatever for spontaneous reaction and it needs to be provided all the time? Or is it simply that such a reaction will be impossible, aka: no reactants exist that will create back A,B,E,F spontaneously ? Thank you!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Thermodynamics. System will settle down in the lowest spot of the energy landscape and will sit there happily ever after not moving anywhere - unless you supply it with the external energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nicole4Jesus, topsquark, BillTre and 2 others
Borek said:
Thermodynamics. System will settle down in the lowest spot of the energy landscape and will sit there happily ever after not moving anywhere - unless you supply it with the external energy.

OK, but what does that mean? After all the temperature increases from 25 to say 1000 degrees and falls to 25 but will increase to 1000 again once the reactants are mixed again? I guess the 'moving' reactants to mix them again will require more external energy so there is no gain from this?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nicole4Jesus
But perhaps you have in mind chemical oscillating reactions, there are classical experiments like iodine clocks etc?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oscillator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_clock

It looks like concentrations oscillate, and they do, but the explanation is that the intermediates oscillate, but not indefinitely, only until the overall reactions reaches equilibirum, and this is related to gibbs energy of the overall reaction.

/Fredrik
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nicole4Jesus, Lord Jestocost and topsquark
gggnano said:
After all the temperature increases from 25 to say 1000 degrees and falls to 25 but will increase to 1000 again once the reactants are mixed again?
I think you missed the part "will sit there happily ever after".

After an isolated system gets to the equilibrium it stays there, period.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nicole4Jesus, Lord Jestocost, BillTre and 1 other person
Is H2O + H2O ⇔H3O+ + OH- an example? It happens all the time in a glass of water.

If not, what's the difference? In the description with many reactants, I don't think you've clarified things. Just made them more complicated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and topsquark
Vanadium 50 said:
Is H2O + H2O ⇔H3O+ + OH- an example? It happens all the time in a glass of water.

If not, what's the difference? In the description with many reactants, I don't think you've clarified things. Just made them more complicated.

You're most likely right...I was thinking something along the lines of:

1. HCL + Na > H2 + Nacl
2. Nacl + K > KCL + NA
3. H2+KCL > HCL+K
4 -> 1. (cycle continues from beginning, step 1)

HCL and Na will easily react obviously yet no idea if mixing ordinary salt with potassium will result in reaction thought I'm sure it's way better than KCL+Na since K is more reactive. The same can be said about hydrogen and "less tasty salt" KCL.

To start the reaction above all it takes is equal amounts of Na, K and HCL.
 
gggnano said:
You're most likely right...I was thinking something along the lines of:

1. HCL + Na > H2 + Nacl
2. Nacl + K > KCL + NA
3. H2+KCL > HCL+K
4 -> 1. (cycle continues from beginning, step 1)

HCL and Na will easily react obviously yet no idea if mixing ordinary salt with potassium will result in reaction thought I'm sure it's way better than KCL+Na since K is more reactive. The same can be said about hydrogen and "less tasty salt" KCL.

To start the reaction above all it takes is equal amounts of Na, K and HCL.
No. That´s the issue of equilibrium.
If reaction 1) goes to the right and K is more active than Na so reaction 2) goes to the right then therefore reaction 3) will NOT go to the right. Since Na reacts with HCl and K is even more reactive, K will also react with HCl, not vice versa.
Also called "detailed balance".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K