- #1
sludger13
- 83
- 0
I was thinking about this:
Let's consider a dissociation of some chemical that can run in both directions:
[itex]AB\rightleftharpoons A^{+}+B^{-}[/itex]
Dissociated form is soluble in a solvent and undissociated form is not - it precipitates.
Then the reaction proceeds to the left much faster than to the right, because dissociated form possesses much more reaction "surface" (it is dissolved) than a clot (clot reacts only on its surface).
Also a reaction equilibrium moves almost entirely to the left, because reaction conditions (matter phase) differ from one reaction's side to another. Also the reaction equilibrium does not reflect the stability of reactants resp. products, so it's kinda false (or kinetic) equilibrium.
Is this relevant idea in fact? Can some clot placed inside solvent dissociate but dissociated form does almost not exist in the solvent because of this?
Or is this true - if any chemical cannot be dissolved by a solvent, it can be neither dissociated by a solvent?
Let's consider a dissociation of some chemical that can run in both directions:
[itex]AB\rightleftharpoons A^{+}+B^{-}[/itex]
Dissociated form is soluble in a solvent and undissociated form is not - it precipitates.
Then the reaction proceeds to the left much faster than to the right, because dissociated form possesses much more reaction "surface" (it is dissolved) than a clot (clot reacts only on its surface).
Also a reaction equilibrium moves almost entirely to the left, because reaction conditions (matter phase) differ from one reaction's side to another. Also the reaction equilibrium does not reflect the stability of reactants resp. products, so it's kinda false (or kinetic) equilibrium.
Is this relevant idea in fact? Can some clot placed inside solvent dissociate but dissociated form does almost not exist in the solvent because of this?
Or is this true - if any chemical cannot be dissolved by a solvent, it can be neither dissociated by a solvent?