Question about activation energy

Thread starter helpimstuck
Start date Dec 6, 2005
Tags

Activation Energy

AI Thread Summary

Increasing the temperature of a reaction by 10 degrees Celsius at room temperature can double the reaction rate, which implies a specific activation energy. The relationship between reaction rate, temperature, and activation energy is described by the Arrhenius equation. This equation indicates that a higher temperature results in more molecules having sufficient energy to overcome the activation barrier. To determine the exact activation energy, one must refer to the relevant equation in their textbook. Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing reaction kinetics effectively.

Dec 6, 2005

helpimstuck

I know that when you increase a reaction at room temperature (25 degrees) by 10 degrees it doubles the reaction rate, but what activation energy is implied by this?

I would really appreciate it if someone could let me know as i have no idea.

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 7, 2005

GCT

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

theres a specific equation relating reaction rate, temperature, and activation energy...you simply need to find it in your text.

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »