Temperature range at which a reaction is spontaneous, Where is the mistake?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around determining the temperature range for a chemical reaction to be spontaneous, based on the Gibbs free energy equation ΔG = ΔH - TΔS. The reaction has ΔH = -114.1 kJ and ΔS = -146.4 J/K, which is converted to kJ/K for consistency. The initial calculation suggests that for spontaneity, T must be greater than 780 K. However, when testing this value, it results in a positive ΔG at 900 K, indicating non-spontaneity. Conversely, using a temperature below 780 K yields a negative ΔG, confirming spontaneity. The confusion arises from handling the negative signs in the inequality when solving for T. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly managing negative values to avoid errors in the inequality direction, suggesting that plugging in values before manipulating the inequality can help clarify the calculations and avoid mistakes.
drtg45
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
For a chemical reaction we have, ΔH=-114.1kJ and ΔS=-146.4J/K ---> ΔS=-146.4·10^{-3}kJ/K.

Question: Determine the temperature range at which the reaction is spontaneous.

A reaction is spontaneous when ΔG is negative in the equation ΔG=ΔH-TΔS, so I do:

ΔG=ΔH-TΔS

0>ΔH-TΔS

-ΔH>-TΔS

\frac{-ΔH}{-ΔS}<T (the inequality sign changes direction when we multiply or divide both sides by a negative number right?)

\frac{ΔH}{ΔS}<T (signs cancel each other)

\frac{-114.1kJ}{-146.4·10^-3kJ/K}<T (we input the values)

780K<T , so this tells us that the T must be greater than 780K in order for the reaction to be spontaneous, but then when I check my answer in the original equation:

ΔG=ΔH-TΔS

ΔG=-114.1kJ-(900K)(-146.4·10^{-3}kJ/K) ---> ΔG=18kJ , My inequality answer I suppose is wrong because if T is greater than 780K (in this example I used 900K) then ΔG is positive and the reaction is non spontaneous.

ΔG=-114.1kJ-(200K)(-146.4·10^{-3}kJ/K) ---> ΔG=-85kJ , In here if we use a T lower than 780K the reaction is spontaneous.

I know I made a mistake somewhere because these results are not in accordance with each other, I'm guessing I made the mistake in the inequality while solving for T but I'm honestly not seeing it!, Where did I mess up?:confused:
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I prefer to stay away from negative signs when possible.

TΔS>ΔH

ΔS is a negative value, correct? So to quote you, "(the inequality sign changes direction when we multiply or divide both sides by a negative number right?)"

what does that do to your inequality when you divide the negative ΔS back over?
 
Hey thanks for your reply, I just finished posting something about inequalities in the General Math section, it would be great if you could check it out:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=627753

maybe by doing what I describe in there the problems brought about by the minus sign and the change of direction of the inequality sign can be avoided?
 
-ΔH>-TΔS

plug values

(-1)(-114.1kJ)> (-1)T(-146.4·10^−3kJ/K)

multiply. do you have any negative values in your inequality?
 
ChiralWaltz said:
-ΔH>-TΔS

plug values

(-1)(-114.1kJ)> (-1)T(-146.4·10^−3kJ/K)

multiply. do you have any negative values in your inequality?

That's what I'm talking about, plugging the values before we get to make the mistake and change the direction in the inequality sign.
 
(-1)(-114.1kJ)> (-1)T(-146.4·10^−3kJ/K)

Since you have 2 negative numbers being multiplied on either side, they become positive. Now you don't have have negative numbers anymore, so you don't need to flip the inequality sign when you divide.
 
I want to test a humidity sensor with one or more saturated salt solutions. The table salt that I have on hand contains one of two anticaking agents, calcium silicate or sodium aluminosilicate. Will the presence of either of these additives (or iodine for that matter) significantly affect the equilibrium humidity? I searched and all the how-to-do-it guides did not address this question. One research paper I found reported that at 1.5% w/w calcium silicate increased the deliquescent point by...
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!!
I'm trying to find a cheap DIY method to etch holes of various shapes through 0.3mm Aluminium sheet using 5-10% Sodium Hydroxide. The idea is to apply a resist to the Aluminium then selectively ablate it off using a diode laser cutter and then dissolve away the Aluminium using Sodium Hydroxide. By cheap I mean resists costing say £20 in small quantities. The Internet has suggested various resists to try including... Enamel paint (only survived seconds in the NaOH!) Acrylic paint (only...
Back
Top