What Does an Equilibrium Constant Value of 1 Mean and When is it Expected?

Thread starter Nader AbdlGhani
Start date Mar 9, 2016
Tags

Constant Equilibirium Equilibrium Equilibrium constant Physical chemistry Value

AI Thread Summary

An equilibrium constant (K) value of 1 indicates that the concentrations of reactants and products are equal at equilibrium, suggesting no net change in the system. This scenario occurs when the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG) is zero, meaning the reaction is at its most stable state. Common examples include reactions that are balanced in stoichiometry or occur under specific conditions where reactants and products are present in equal amounts. Understanding the relationship between K and ΔG is crucial for predicting reaction behavior. Such equilibrium conditions are significant in both theoretical and practical chemistry contexts.

Mar 9, 2016

Nader AbdlGhani

Please post this type of questions in the HW section using the template.

When does the value of the "Equilibrium Constant (K)" equal one ? and what does that mean ?

Physics news on Phys.org

Mar 9, 2016

DrClaude

Mentor

Is this homework?

What is the relation between the equilibrium constant and the Gibbs free energy?

Mar 9, 2016

epenguin

Science Advisor

Can you think of some examples, which are not uncommon, where constant equal to 1 is expected and found?

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »