What Mechanism Explains the Rate Law for 2A + B2 -> 2AB?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining a reaction mechanism for the equation 2A + B2 -> 2AB, given the rate law Rate = k[A][B2]. A proposed mechanism suggests that the reaction involves an initial step where A reacts with B2 to form AB and B, followed by a second step where B reacts with A to produce more AB. The reasoning indicates that the slow steps of the mechanism involve one mole of A and one mole of B2, aligning with the rate law. The participant expresses a need for guidance due to a lack of understanding after being absent. Overall, the focus is on developing a coherent mechanism that fits the provided rate law.
pinkfloyd12
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



"Given the rate law for the following equation is Rate = k[A][B2]
2A + B2 ------> 2AB

Suggest a mechanism for the reaction


Homework Equations



I have no clue; I was absent for 2 weeks and now have to teach myself the first two units, I've been able to teach myself rate law and order of the reaction and equilibrium stuff but I am lost on this.

The Attempt at a Solution



A + B = AB
AB + AB = 2AB

Any guidance would be nice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm also a student but I'm going to try this, since the rate law stated that Rate = k[A][B2] so my assumption is

A + B2 ---> AB + B
B + A ----> AB

since the rate law is Rate = k[A][B2] it should means that the slow steps consist of 1 mol of A and 1 mol of B2
 
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