Re: chemical equilibrium
- From: bruce.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bruce Sinclair)
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:05:17 GMT
In article <e_vEj.15680$4q3.6@trndny02>, Marvin <physchem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ron Jones wrote:
b201b402cd21c3@xxxxxxxxx wrote:The heading on the original post was "chemical equilibrium".
Consider the reaction:It's too dependant on the rate constants to generalize.
A -> B + C
If the reactor already has substantial B and C in it, the reaction
will not proceed as far to the right as it would without B and C (Le
Chatelier).
What if the reactor has substantial C, but no B in it? Will the
reaction still proceed as though it had been devoid if both B and C?
A -> B + C can also be the equation for a firework / runaway reaction - the
presence of extra C will slow the reaction (by absorbing heat and reducing
the temperature rise), but it's still going to go to completion.
The question was evidently about an equilibrium reaction.
Yes it was ... but the equation as written is mostly not at eqilibrium but
is reactant to products (ie implies that it goes at least mostly to
completion).
Were this really an equilibrium, it should be written more accurately as
A <=> B + C
There's still the small matters of equilibrium constants and rates of
reactions of course. :)
.
- References:
- Re: chemical equilibrium
- From: Ron Jones
- Re: chemical equilibrium
- From: Marvin
- Re: chemical equilibrium
- Prev by Date: Re: minimal metal
- Previous by thread: Re: chemical equilibrium
- Next by thread: Historic Scientific Instruments (Attn: Allan Adler)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|