Question about Balancing Redox Reactions

Thread starter Dove99x
Start date Oct 27, 2012
Tags

Reactions Redox

AI Thread Summary

The discussion centers on the challenges of balancing redox reactions, specifically the confusion surrounding the addition of six electrons to one side of the equation. The original poster expresses uncertainty about their method and results, indicating a significant discrepancy between their answer and that of others. There is a suggestion to attach images for better clarity, as the inability to view them may hinder assistance. The conversation highlights the importance of visual aids in understanding complex chemical processes. Overall, participants are seeking clarity on the correct approach to balancing redox reactions.

Oct 27, 2012

Dove99x

I'm not really sure exactly if I'm doing these correctly but what stopped was the choice of adding 6 electrons to the left side..

This is what I did:

This is their answer:

I'm doing something wrong and I don't know why my answer is so different then theirs.

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 27, 2012

Borek

Mentor

I can't see your pictures. Perhaps that's just temporary. Try to attach them to your post.

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 »