Solving Notation Confusion in Law's Combustion Physics

In summary, the conversation is discussing a chemical reaction and the notation used to represent it. The notation includes stoichiometric coefficients, which represent the molar ratios of reactants and products in the reaction. There is confusion about whether the coefficients represent concentrations or mole fractions, and there is also discussion about the notation and wording used by the author. Overall, it is concluded that the notation and wording are likely just poor and inconsistent.
  • #1
Saladsamurai
3,020
7
I am reading through a combustion physics text by Law and I am a little confused by this notation for a reaction. He says:

Chung K. Law said:
Consider a chemical reaction given by

[tex]
\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i'M_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i''M_i
[/tex]

where Mi is the chemical symbol for the ith species and [itex]\nu_i[/itex] the corresponding molar concentration coefficient ...

My questions:

1) In this sense, is the "concentration" vi the same as the relative composition? That is, is it simply the "mole fraction?"

2) Both of the summands in the reactants and products run from i = 1 to N. I do not understand this. It seems that this would not allow for the formation of different molecules in the products. That is, it assumes that the reactants and the products are identical. But in the case of a simple reaction like [itex]CO + \frac{1}{2}O_2 \leftrightharpoons CO_2[/itex] it is clear that there are 1) a different number of products than reactants and 2) the subscript "1" in the reactants is not representative of the same molecule as "1" in the products.Is it possible that this reaction is being written "atom wise" (I have never heard of this) instead of as molecules? Or is it that the indices on the left hand side and those on the right hand side are completely independent? That is, the set of "N" molecules in the reactants is a completely different set than the "N" molecules in the products?
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime R_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime\prime P_i[/tex]
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Ygggdrasil said:
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i' R_i \leftrightharpoons \sum_{i=1}^ N \nu_i'' P_i[/tex]
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.

Hmmm...You see, that is what I am used to in my other texts; however, I have quoted him word for word. He distinctly uses the word "concentrations." And he has made no distinction that the different M's are "R" and "P" as you have. I'll assume that it is just poor notation, but surely the use of the word "concentrations" was intentional (?).

Thanks,
Casey
 
  • #4
I'd say it's probably all just poor notation and wording.
 
  • #5
I guess I can live with that. Thanks for your response. :smile:

~Casey
 

Related to Solving Notation Confusion in Law's Combustion Physics

1. What is notation confusion in combustion physics?

Notation confusion in combustion physics refers to the discrepancies or inconsistencies in the use of mathematical notation in equations, formulas, and symbols within the field of combustion physics. This can lead to misunderstandings or errors in calculations and analysis.

2. Why is notation confusion a problem in law's combustion physics?

Law's combustion physics is a complex field that involves the study of chemical reactions and energy transfer in combustion processes. Notation confusion can occur due to the use of various notations and conventions by different researchers, making it difficult to compare and replicate results.

3. How does notation confusion impact research in combustion physics?

Notation confusion can lead to errors in data analysis, which can affect the accuracy and reliability of research findings. It can also result in a lack of standardization and consistency in the field, making it challenging to build upon existing knowledge and theories.

4. What can be done to address notation confusion in combustion physics?

To address notation confusion in combustion physics, researchers can establish and follow a set of standardized notations and conventions. Collaboration and communication among researchers can also help to identify and resolve any discrepancies or misunderstandings in notation usage.

5. How can notation confusion in combustion physics be beneficial?

While notation confusion can be a problem, it can also lead to new discoveries and insights in the field of combustion physics. By questioning and clarifying notation discrepancies, researchers can uncover underlying assumptions and limitations in existing theories, leading to further advancements in the field.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Chemistry
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Chemistry
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Chemistry
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top