I’m on the last part of my induction coursework for my university course in september, and thought it would be a good idea to check my last question/answer with you guys, seeing how it was the biggest pain to answer.
This question makes up approximately 8% of my paper, section B is worth 50% and there is 6 questions (out of a 50 question paper)…
“Explain the difference between thermodynamic and kinetic measurements of chemical reactions.”
My answer is:
Thermodynamic measurements of chemical reactions look into the transformation of energy, the energetics. They are done to assess whether a reaction will go ahead or not, i.e. the feasibility of reactions, and if they do go ahead, to what extent they will happen.
Kinetic measurements are to assess a reactionâ??s rate, i.e. how fast the reaction happens under a given set of conditions. These conditions can be; temperature, pressure, concentrations of reactants and surface area.
Thermodynamic measurements do not necessarily indicate facts about the kinetics of a reaction, or vice-versa.
I have a good understanding of this subject but I just get this feeling that my answer is too simple, even though the question itself is very generalised… “measurements”.
What do you T-Nation chemists out there think of my answer? Is there anything I should mention that I missed?
Seems like pretty basic stuff. I’m a chem major but have only been one for about a year. I definitely am not qualified to answer any of this. Good luck though! Oh and screw thermodynamics
Its alright, I would use examples to demonstrate what you mean for example diamond and graphite, although graphite is more thermodynamically stable at stp and below the carbon bonds in diamond have to over come a huge kinetic barrier such as for all practical purposes diamond will never turn back into graphite or at least will take it many billions of years to do so. Another example is the triple bond between the carbons in acetylene even though it has a high thermodynamic stability it is easily broken due to the kinetic availability of the electrons which is a reason why it is used in welding.
This guys channel is great. He helped me understand why 3d orbitals are higher in energy even though 4s orbitals have a higher radial distribution. (http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy)
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Its alright, I would use examples to demonstrate what you mean for example diamond and graphite, although graphite is more thermodynamically stable at stp and below the carbon bonds in diamond have to over come a huge kinetic barrier such as for all practical purposes diamond will never turn back into graphite or at least will take it many billions of years to do so. Another example is the triple bond between the carbons in acetylene even though it has a high thermodynamic stability it is easily broken due to the kinetic availability of the electrons which is a reason why it is used in welding.
This guys channel is great. He helped me understand why 3d orbitals are higher in energy even though 4s orbitals have a higher radial distribution. (http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy)[/quote]