Optimizing Ammonia Production: Calculating Partial Pressures and Reactant Ratios

  • Thread starter Thread starter yolo123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Process
AI Thread Summary
An ammonia plant operates at 700K with a Kp of 3.5 x 10-4 and a stoichiometric ratio of 1:3 for N2:H2, producing an equilibrium partial pressure of NH3 at 50 atm. A suggestion is made to change the reactant ratio to 1:6, which could potentially lower pressure and increase profitability while maintaining the same ammonia output. However, there is confusion regarding the reaction quotient and whether NH3 should be cubed in calculations. The discussion emphasizes the need for calculations to determine the partial pressures of reactants and total pressure under the new conditions. The validity of the suggestion hinges on these calculations and the relative costs of the reactants.
yolo123
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
An ammonia plant operates at close to 700K and a Kp of 3.5 x 10-4 employing the stoichiometric ratio of 1:3 N2:H2. If the equilibrium partial pressure of NH3 is 50. atm, calculate the partial pressures of the reactants and the total pressure.
The suggestion is made that, since the [NH3] is cubed in the reaction quotient, the plant could produce the same amount of ammonia if the reactant ratio were 1:6 - and at a lower pressure and increased profitability. Calculate the partial pressure of each reactant and the total pressure under these new conditions assuming PNH3 is still 50. atm at equilibrium.
Is the suggestion valid?


Since when is NH3 cubed?
What do we have to do? I don't understand anything. What is the 1:6 ratio? How do we prove improved profitability?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree, cubed seems wrong.
 
yolo123 said:
An ammonia plant operates at close to 700K and a Kp of 3.5 x 10-4 employing the stoichiometric ratio of 1:3 N2:H2. If the equilibrium partial pressure of NH3 is 50. atm, calculate the partial pressures of the reactants and the total pressure.
The suggestion is made that, since the [NH3] is cubed in the reaction quotient, the plant could produce the same amount of ammonia if the reactant ratio were 1:6 - and at a lower pressure and increased profitability. Calculate the partial pressure of each reactant and the total pressure under these new conditions assuming PNH3 is still 50. atm at equilibrium.
Is the suggestion valid?


Since when is NH3 cubed?
What do we have to do? I don't understand anything. What is the 1:6 ratio? How do we prove improved profitability?

From context the the 1:6 ratio should be the N2:H2 ratio, which previously was 1:3.

I'd suggest you first try to answer the understandable and solvable questions.

When answers are evaluated by humans not computers you should normally get credit if you state the question you think you are answering and give an intelligent answer.

What is more economical could depend on the relative costs of the two reactants, or it might be independent, hard to say beforehand. You need to write some equations and attempt some calculations first.
 
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