Solving Equilibrium Problem Using Quadratic Formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving an equilibrium problem using the quadratic formula. The reaction involves 2NO2 equilibrating with N2O4, with a given K value of 7.5 liters/mole. Participants clarify that starting with 2.0 moles of NO2 in a 2.0-liter container results in an initial concentration of 1.0 M. The quadratic equation yields two potential solutions for N2O4 concentration, but only one is physically valid, as the other leads to a negative concentration for NO2. The correct equilibrium concentration of N2O4 is determined to be 0.39 moles/liter.
1uigi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm learning equilibirum in class, but I am stuck on this question. DOes anyone how how to do this problem? I use the quadratic formula but end end with answers A and B, but the correct answer is A. Can someone show me step by step how to do this problem? thanks

9. At a certain temperature, T, K for the reaction below is 7.5 liters/mole.
2NO2 <===> N2O4
If 2.0 moles of NO2 are placed in a 2.0-liter container and permitted to react at this temperature, what will be the concentration of N2O4 at equilibrium?

a) 0.39 moles/liter
b) 0.65 moles/liter
c) 0.82 moles/liter
d) 7.5 moles/liter
e) none of these
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You did the problem correctly. You end up having to solve the quadratic equation 30.x2 - 31x + 7.5 = 0. You get the answers of x = .39 and x = .65.

Now, think about the problem. You are starting with 1.0 M NO2, correct? You should notice that the equilibrium concentration of NO2 will be 1.0 - 2x, and the equilibrium concentration of N2O4 will be x.

If x was .65, then 1.0 - 2x would yield a negative concentration, which is physically impossible. Therefore, the only correct answer can be [N2O4] = .39 M because 1.0 - 2(.39) gives you a positive concentration.
 
Last edited:
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