Thermochemistry : What happens when too much hea tis added to a reaction?

AI Thread Summary
Excessive heat can indeed affect chemical reactions, potentially leading to competing reactions that may outpace the desired reaction. While increasing temperature generally speeds up reactions according to collision theory, there is a threshold beyond which the reaction may be inhibited. High temperatures can alter the system's conditions, such as evaporating solvents, which can prevent the reaction from occurring. Therefore, it is crucial to find an optimal temperature range for each specific reaction. Understanding these limits is essential for effective thermochemical processes.
mballaz
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I need to find out whether there is a maximum amount of heat that one can apply to a certain reaction in order to increase its rate, as described by the collision theory. In other words, is there such thing as too much heat when referring to speeding up the reaction in question? Can enough heat "kill" a reaction and prevent it from occurring?

btw nice site, looks very promising :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is always a risk that competing reactions will become faster than the one you need, or that you will change something in the system, making the reaction impossible - like boiling out the water if reaction takes place in the solution.

--
 
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