Test ur Gchem

[Sublimation]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Ait guys, I was looking through the chapter on equilibrium and la Chateliers principle and noticed something interesting. Now according to la chatelier if i had an exothermic reaction, heat can be assumed to be a product, therefore addition of heat force the reaction towards the reactants. However, I was working on a friends project car and noticed something. Combustion is an exothermic reaction right? So, does this mean fires will slow down as they get hotter???😕😕 and if so Why is cooling a fire an effective way of slowing it down???? according to la chatelier it should just get hotter????😕😕😕

I kno something like this wont show up on the DAT if anything the Q's on the DAT are probably going to be much more straitforward then that. I just thouhgt it was interesting and thought maybe i would get some pplz thoughts on it.

 

[sddat]

Let me see if I can understand ya..

Heat is a product in an exothermic reaction. Heat is a reactant in an endothermic reaction. To cool something, you are "removing heat" right? So if you cool something you are taking away a product and thus forcing the reaction to the right...hm...We fight fire by taking away O2 (covering the flame) and taking away a reactant (thus moving the reaction to the left away from the products). We also fight fire with water, which is self explanatory.

 

[sddat]

Ait guys, I was looking through the chapter on equilibrium and la Chateliers principle and noticed something interesting. Now according to la chatelier if i had an exothermic reaction, heat can be assumed to be a product, therefore addition of heat force the reaction towards the reactants. However, I was working on a friends project car and noticed something. Combustion is an exothermic reaction right? So, does this mean fires will slow down as they get hotter???😕😕 and if so Why is cooling a fire an effective way of slowing it down???? according to la chatelier it should just get hotter????😕😕😕

Also, fires do slow down..they burn themselves out. You have to take into account that once a fire starts it continues to add reactants. You are constantly adding houses, cars, wood...anything that can be burned would be a "reactant." So you might theoretically fight heat with heat..but in reality, you would be feeding the reactants. You smart though, me likes the way you think homie.

 

[Sublimation]

Also, fires do slow down..they burn themselves out. You have to take into account that once a fire starts it continues to add reactants. You are constantly adding houses, cars, wood...anything that can be burned would be a "reactant." So you might theoretically fight heat with heat..but in reality, you would be feeding the reactants. You smart though, me likes the way you think homie.

Lol when i started to think about it i convinced myself to put it down on paper....and then i wrote out a simple combustion reaction, and thought....ok wat fuels the fire.....and i stated to think trees, wood, cars, homes, and other random matter. then i realized yes it is theoretically sound, however, like you said, we have to take into account all the variables, which i obviously failed to do.

 

[chemtopper]

Is combustion reaction an equilibrium reaction?
Do you think all reactions are in equilibrium ?

 

[sddat]

Is combustion reaction an equilibrium reaction?
Do you think all reactions are in equilibrium ?

Don't all reaction work towards equilibrium?

 

[marscole]

how about HCl --> H+ and Cl-? If you add more H+, will you get HCl?

Don't mess up!! The Le Chatelier Principle only works for reactions where there are forward and reverse direction!!!