Question about equilibrium constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the equilibrium constant for reversible chemical reactions, specifically when the same reaction is expressed with different stoichiometric coefficients. The participant questions why the equilibrium constants differ when the reactions appear to represent the same process. It is clarified that the two reactions are not identical; they represent different molecular interactions, affecting the equilibrium constant. The equilibrium constant is not arbitrary; it is derived from thermodynamic principles and reflects the actual dynamics of the reaction. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurately applying the concept in chemical equilibrium problems.
brianparks
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I am having serious difficulty understanding the concept of the equilibrium constant in a reversible chemical reaction. Maybe one of you all can help?

Suppose we have the following reversible chemical reaction:

1) aA + bB <---> cC + dD

The equilibrium constant for the reaction is said to be:

Kc1 = [(A^a)(B^b)]/[(c^C)(d^D)]

Now, suppose that we express the above reaction differently, as follows:

2) 2aA + 2bB <---> 2cC + 2dD

My understanding is that these two chemical reactions are the exact same reaction, just expressed with different stoichiometric numbers.

The thing that boggles me, however, is that the second expression of the reaction has a different equilibrium constant than the first.

Kc2 = [(A^2a)(B^2b)]/[(C^2c)(D^2d)]

How can the equilibrium constant (and its associated equation) express or quantify an actual feature of a reaction (i.e., the extent to which it is shifted toward the product or the reactants) if it changes depending on how you express the reaction?

What does the equilbrium constant (and equation) mean? Is it an arbitrary formula used for convenience in solving chemical equilibrium problems that could just as easily be defined differently? Or is it something more?

I have read that you can actually derive the equation using chemical thermodynamics, so it can't just be a arbitrary ratio.

This is really confusing me. Can someone please help?

Thanks,
--Brian
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
brianparks said:
Suppose we have the following reversible chemical reaction:

1) aA + bB <---> cC + dD

The equilibrium constant for the reaction is said to be:

Kc1 = [(A^a)(B^b)]/[(c^C)(d^D)

It should be: K_c = \frac{[C]^c [D]^d}{[A]^a <b>^b}</b>
 
Last edited:
Good point. I screwed that up. Anyway, does my question make any sense?
 
What's the relationship between your two "separate" equilibrium constants?
 
In addition to what others have said, think about the molecular scale of things. The first would be a bimolecular reaction, the second would represent a reaction involving four molecules assuming uniform constants (four molecule ~simultaneous collision)! The two reactions are indeed different. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the two are the same, remember these equations represent what's actually going on.
 
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