Reaction rates, temperature, and thermal energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the relationship between reaction rates, temperature, and thermal energy in chemical reactions, particularly exothermic ones. Increasing temperature raises the energy and collision rates of reactant and product molecules, which can increase both forward and reverse reaction rates. While Le Chatelier's principle indicates that an increase in temperature shifts the equilibrium towards reactants, the overall reaction rate can still increase due to heightened molecular activity. The key point is that it is the ratio of the forward and reverse rates that determines equilibrium, not their absolute values. Understanding this distinction helps clarify the effects of temperature and thermal energy on reaction dynamics.
brake4country
Messages
216
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


Hi there. My question is more for clarification than a homework question. In my studies, I noticed that my MCAT study manual provides problems relating reaction rates and the effect that temperature and thermal energy have on a reaction. For example, a question asks: in an exothermic reaction, what affects the ratio of the forward rate to the reverse rate?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The correct answer is: removing thermal energy from the system. This answer makes sense. But, in another similar problem, the question is based on what would happen if the temperature is increased. One would think that it would shift the equilibrium to the reactants in an exothermic reaction. What am I missing here? How can the rates of both the forward and reverse be increased when temperature is increased? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is true that the reaction will shift to the reactants due to Le Chatelier's principle, however when you increase the temperature, the reactant and product molecules will gain energy and move more vigorously. The rate of collision between the molecules increases. Thus even though the equilibrium does shift to the left, the rate increases because the molecules gain energy and make the chemical reaction occurs more rapidly.
 
I see. Temperature will increase the the forward rate of a reaction even if it is exothermic. Removing thermal energy from an exothermic reaction will affect the ratio of the forward rate to the reverse rate by shifting it toward the products, right? I think I am getting the hang of this. I was confusing what affect temperature would have on a reaction and how removing thermal energy would affect it. Two different questions with different consequences.
 
Yup you are right =) le chatelier principle is all about achieving equilibrium while rate of reaction can be explained through kinetic theory of particles.
 
  • Like
Likes brake4country
brake4country said:
How can the rates of both the forward and reverse be increased when temperature is increased?

It is not absolute values that matter, but their ratio. If both are increased by the same amount such that the ratio doesn't change, equilibrium doesn't shift at all. However, typically changes are different and the ratio changes as well.
 
Borek said:
It is not absolute values that matter, but their ratio. If both are increased by the same amount such that the ratio doesn't change, equilibrium doesn't shift at all. However, typically changes are different and the ratio changes as well.

Got it. Equilibrium can be maintained as long as the ratios are not affected. Thanks for the clarification!
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top