How Does Volume Change Affect Equilibrium in Gas Reactions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dolpho
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle
AI Thread Summary
In gas reactions, an increase in volume leads to a decrease in pressure, which shifts the equilibrium to favor the side with more moles of gas. For the reaction involving NO, O2, and NO2, expanding the volume from 1.0 to 2.0 L would favor the reactants, increasing the moles of NO and O2. Conversely, in the reaction with HgO, increasing the volume of the bulb actually favors the formation of O2 gas, which can increase the mass of liquid Hg. The confusion arises from misinterpreting the reaction dynamics, as the goal is to favor the production of gas rather than solid. Understanding these principles is key to solving equilibrium problems in gas reactions.
dolpho
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi there, I'm kinda confused about these two problems.

An equilibrium mixture of NO(g), O2 (g) and NO2 (g) is allowed to expand from 1.0 to 2.0 L at a constant temperature. Given that

2 NO (g) + O2 (g) ---> 2 NO2 (g) which of the following statements is correct?

(A) The concentrations of all three gases are unchanged.
(B) The value of KP would decrease.
(C) The number of moles of NO2 would increase.
(D) The number of moles of O2 would increase.
(E) The number of moles of all three gases are unchanged.

Well since the volume increases, the pressure decreases. And since the reaction wants to increase the pressure again it would make more moles of gas. Meaning it would favor the left side and make more reactants.

I get that sort of, but then I came across this question...

The following RXN is allowed to reach equilibrium in a glass bulb at a given temp.
2 HgO (solid) <---> 2 Hg (liquid) + O2 (gas) The mass of the Hg in the bulb can be increased by?

So I thought since we want a reaction that favors the solid, we could decrease the volume, which increases the pressure. The reaction would then make less moles of gas, which would increase the reactant's mass...

But the answer is *increase the volume of the bulb*? I'm not really sure how they came to that conclusion and would appreciate any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dolpho said:

Homework Statement



Hi there, I'm kinda confused about these two problems.

An equilibrium mixture of NO(g), O2 (g) and NO2 (g) is allowed to expand from 1.0 to 2.0 L at a constant temperature. Given that

2 NO (g) + O2 (g) ---> 2 NO2 (g) which of the following statements is correct?

(A) The concentrations of all three gases are unchanged.
(B) The value of KP would decrease.
(C) The number of moles of NO2 would increase.
(D) The number of moles of O2 would increase.
(E) The number of moles of all three gases are unchanged.

Well since the volume increases, the pressure decreases. And since the reaction wants to increase the pressure again it would make more moles of gas. Meaning it would favor the left side and make more reactants.

I get that sort of, but then I came across this question...

The following RXN is allowed to reach equilibrium in a glass bulb at a given temp.
2 HgO (solid) <---> 2 Hg (liquid) + O2 (gas) The mass of the Hg in the bulb can be increased by?

So I thought since we want a reaction that favors the solid, we could decrease the volume, which increases the pressure. The reaction would then make less moles of gas, which would increase the reactant's mass...

But the answer is *increase the volume of the bulb*? I'm not really sure how they came to that conclusion and would appreciate any help!

It seems your reasoning is OK and that you have just misread or something - you do not want to favour the solid, Hg is liquid.
 
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