What is the correct procedure for calculating energy change to form KI(s)?

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the energy change for forming 1.05 mol of KI(s), the user is attempting to sum the energy values for the phase changes and ionization processes involved. The values provided include the energy required to convert iodine and potassium from solid to gas, the ionization energy for potassium, and the electron affinity for iodine, along with the lattice energy for KI. The user initially added all values and then multiplied by 1.05 mol, but this approach did not yield the correct result. A suggestion was made to check the stoichiometry of iodine in the calculations. Proper attention to stoichiometry and the correct application of lattice energy is crucial for accurate energy change calculations.
tangents
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello all I just need to know if the procedure I'm taking is right.

I need to find energy change of 1.05 Mol of KI(s) given that:

I2(s) → I2(g) : 62.44 KJ/mol
K(s) → K(g) : 180.4 KJ/mol
1/2 I2(g) → I(g) : 138.05 KJ/mol
K+(g) + e− → K(g) : −419 KJ/mol
I−(g) → I(g) + e− : 295.16 KJ/mol
Lattice energy for KI = −649 KJ/mol

I tried adding all the values and then multiplying by 1.05 mol but that doesn't seem to work so then what I did was multiply 1.05 by the lattice energy and then add up all the values but I still am not getting the correct answer. There is a diagram in my text and I followed every step yet am I doing something wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tangents said:
still am not getting the correct answer.
Check the iodine stoichiometry.
 
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