MHB Calculate Equilibrium Constant of 2BrCl <=> Br2 + Cl2

AI Thread Summary
The equilibrium constant for the reaction 2BrCl <=> Br2 + Cl2 is calculated using the concentrations at equilibrium. After heating 0.9 moles of BrCl in a 5-liter vessel, 0.4 moles of Cl2 and 0.4 moles of Br2 are produced, leaving 0.1 moles of BrCl. The correct formula for the equilibrium constant is Kc = (0.4 * 0.4) / (0.1^2), resulting in Kc = 16. It is noted that the volume cancels out in the calculation, making it unnecessary to know the exact volume when determining the equilibrium constant. Understanding this concept is crucial for accurately calculating Kc in similar reactions.
markosheehan
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
bromine monochloride dissociated on heating the following equation

2BrCl <=> Br2 + Cl2

.9 moles of BrCl were heated in a 5 liter vessel until equilibrium was established . the amount of free chlorine in the mixture was found to be .4 moles

calculate the equilibrium constant for the reaction.

i thought this would be the answer kc=(.4*.4)/(.8)^2

if there are .4 moles of cl2 there must be .4 moles of Br2

there are 2 moles of 2BrCl for every mole of cl2 so there must be .8 mole of BrCl

sadly this does not give the right answer which is kc=16
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
markosheehan said:
if there are .4 moles of cl2 there must be .4 moles of Br2

there are 2 moles of 2BrCl for every mole of cl2 so there must be .8 mole of BrCl

Careful here.

We are indeed dealing with 0.8 moles of $\ce{BrCl}$.
But those 0.8 moles of $\ce{BrCl}$ were dissociated in the reaction $\ce{2BrCl <=> Br2 + Cl2}$.
It means that from the original 0.9 moles, there are 0.1 moles left.
So in equilibrium we have 0.1 moles of $\ce{BrCl}$, 0.4 moles of $\ce{Br2}$, and 0.4 moles of $\ce{Cl2}$.

That makes the equilibrium constant:
$$K_c = \frac{0.4\cdot 0.4}{0.1^2} = 16$$
 
thanks.

isnt the concentration always supposed to be in moles per liter so should we divide by 5 as its in a 5 litre vessel. the answer at the back of the book is 16 though.

the next part of the question is explain why it is not necessary to know the volume of the solution when calculating the equilibrium constant.

i am not sure what i should say.
 
markosheehan said:
thanks.

isnt the concentration always supposed to be in moles per liter so should we divide by 5 as its in a 5 litre vessel. the answer at the back of the book is 16 though.

the next part of the question is explain why it is not necessary to know the volume of the solution when calculating the equilibrium constant.

i am not sure what i should say.

The divisions by the volume cancel in this case, because we have the same number of molecules on both sides of the equation.
With concentrations in mole per liter the equilibrium constant is:
$$K_c = \frac{\frac{0.4\text{ mol}}{\cancel{5\text{ L}}}\cdot \frac{0.4\text{ mol}}{\cancel{5\text{ L}}}}
{\left(\frac{0.1\text{ mol}}{\cancel{5\text{ L}}}\right)^2} = 16$$
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top