Kp problem with total pressure given

  • Thread starter Thread starter marquitos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pressure
AI Thread Summary
For the equilibrium reaction PCl5(g) <--> PCl(g) + Cl2(g) with Kp = 0.20 at 298K, the total pressure in a 1.0-L flask is 3.00 atm after reaching equilibrium. To find the initial pressure of PCl5, an ICE table can be used, introducing variables for the amounts of substances at equilibrium. The initial pressure of PCl5 can be represented as y, while the change in pressure due to the reaction can be denoted as x. Although the problem presents insufficient information to solve directly, combining the known total pressure with the ideal gas law allows for the establishment of two equations with two unknowns. This approach is essential for determining the initial conditions of the system.
marquitos
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
For the equilibrium shown below, Kp = 0.20 at 298K
PCl5(g) <--> PCl (g) + Cl2 (g)
A certain amount of PCl5 is added to a 1.0-L flask. When equilibrium is reached, the total pressure in the flask is 3.00atm. What is the initial pressure of PCl5 in the flask?

If someone could point me in the right direction I'm having extreme difficulty even starting the problem, in class we haven't gone over anything like this
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know how to use ICE tables?

Basically use stoichiometry of the raction to combine amounts of the substances present at equilibrium with total amount and Kp.

--
 
we have done ICE tables but for this reaction none of the initials are given how would I find them with the given information?
 
You will have two variables - x (as usually in ICE tables) that refers to the amount of substances that reacted, and y - which is initial amount of PCl5. Everything else is initially at 0.

Trick is - this is not enough information to solve, but amounts of substance - when combined with known volume, temperature and pressure - will give you second equation. That means two equations in two unknowns.

--
methods
 
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