What Percentage of PCl5 Will Decompose at 523K?

Thread starter rcrx
Start date Feb 7, 2010
Tags

Chemistry Decomposition

AI Thread Summary

The discussion revolves around calculating the percentage of PCl5 that decomposes at 523K given the equilibrium constant Kp of 0.500 for the reaction PCl5 (g) <-> PCl3 (g) + Cl2 (g). Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the definition of Kp to approach the problem effectively. The initial pressure of PCl5 is set at 0.100 atm, and the calculation involves determining the equilibrium concentrations of the products and reactants. Insight is provided on how to set up the equilibrium expression based on the given Kp value. Ultimately, the focus is on applying the equilibrium principles to find the percentage of PCl5 that decomposes.

Feb 7, 2010

rcrx

For the reaction at 523K PCl5 (g) <-> PCl3 (g) + Cl2 (g) and Kp = 0.500

What percentage of PCl5(g) will decompose if 0.100 atm of PCl5(g) is placed in a closed vessel at 523K?

I am unsure of how to approach this problem, if anyone could give some insight I would greatly appreciate it.

Physics news on Phys.org

Feb 8, 2010

chemisttree

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Look at your definition of Kp. All will become apparent.

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 »