Is there a half cell potential for silicon?

AI Thread Summary
There is currently no established half cell potential for silicon in the galvanic series, as multiple sources, including old inorganic textbooks and handbooks of physics and chemistry, do not provide data on silicon. Users have attempted to find this information but have been unsuccessful in locating any relevant values. The discussion suggests that newer handbooks might potentially contain updated information. The lack of data indicates a gap in the literature regarding silicon's electrochemical properties. Further research may be needed to determine if any recent publications address this topic.
nickdanger
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've looked everywhere. Can someone tell me if there is a half cell potential for silicon?

Si(0) ---> Si(4+) + 4e

Every list of the galvanic series on the web that I have seen has no data for silicon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try checking in an old inorganic textbook, or a handbook of physics and chemistry.
 
symbolipoint said:
Try checking in an old inorganic textbook, or a handbook of physics and chemistry.

Interesting; I tried my own advice, looking in an old handbook, but found no datum for that silicon ion. Maybe a newer handbook might have something?
 
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