Solving Notation Confusion in Law's Combustion Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saladsamurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the notation used in a combustion physics text by Law for representing chemical reactions. The key points include a clarification of the term "concentration" used in the notation, which is identified as stoichiometric coefficients rather than actual concentrations or mole fractions. These coefficients indicate the molar ratios of reactants and products in a reaction. The confusion arises from the notation suggesting that the same indices are used for both reactants and products, leading to the misconception that they represent identical species. It is clarified that the indices for reactants and products are independent, and a more accurate representation would distinguish between reactants (R) and products (P). The discussion concludes with an acknowledgment that the terminology and notation in the text may be misleading, but the fundamental concepts remain intact.
Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
I am reading through a combustion physics text by Law and I am a little confused by this notation for a reaction. He says:

Chung K. Law said:
Consider a chemical reaction given by

<br /> \sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039;M_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039;&#039;M_i<br />

where Mi is the chemical symbol for the ith species and \nu_i the corresponding molar concentration coefficient ...

My questions:

1) In this sense, is the "concentration" vi the same as the relative composition? That is, is it simply the "mole fraction?"

2) Both of the summands in the reactants and products run from i = 1 to N. I do not understand this. It seems that this would not allow for the formation of different molecules in the products. That is, it assumes that the reactants and the products are identical. But in the case of a simple reaction like CO + \frac{1}{2}O_2 \leftrightharpoons CO_2 it is clear that there are 1) a different number of products than reactants and 2) the subscript "1" in the reactants is not representative of the same molecule as "1" in the products.Is it possible that this reaction is being written "atom wise" (I have never heard of this) instead of as molecules? Or is it that the indices on the left hand side and those on the right hand side are completely independent? That is, the set of "N" molecules in the reactants is a completely different set than the "N" molecules in the products?
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime R_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime\prime P_i
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.
 
Last edited:
Ygggdrasil said:
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039; R_i \leftrightharpoons \sum_{i=1}^ N \nu_i&#039;&#039; P_i
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.

Hmmm...You see, that is what I am used to in my other texts; however, I have quoted him word for word. He distinctly uses the word "concentrations." And he has made no distinction that the different M's are "R" and "P" as you have. I'll assume that it is just poor notation, but surely the use of the word "concentrations" was intentional (?).

Thanks,
Casey
 
I'd say it's probably all just poor notation and wording.
 
I guess I can live with that. Thanks for your response. :smile:

~Casey
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top