Why Doesn't Changing Reactant Concentration Affect the Equilibrium Constant?

AI Thread Summary
Changing the concentration of reactants or products does not affect the equilibrium constant (Keq) for a given reaction. The equilibrium constant is defined by the ratio of the concentrations of products to reactants at equilibrium. When the concentration of a reactant, such as X, is altered, the concentrations of the products and other reactants adjust to maintain the equilibrium, thus keeping Keq constant. This principle is fundamental in chemical equilibrium and clarifies why concentration changes do not influence Keq. Understanding this concept is crucial for studying dynamic chemical systems.
johndoe3344
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Not really a textbook question, but I've read from numerous sources that changing the concentration of the reactants/products won't change the equilibrium constant. Why isn't this contradictory?

Assume the reaction:
xX + yY <---> zZ
where x,y,z are the coefficients of X,Y,Z


Keq = [Z]^z/[X]^x[Y]^y

So if I change the concentration of say, X, then won't Keq change by definition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. The constant will remain constant. The concentration of Z and/or Y will change accordingly to maintain the equality.
 
Thanks a lot. That cleared it up for me.
 
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