Consider the following rxnsreactions:
$$\begin{align}\ce{C + O2&->CO2}\tag{1}\\[1em] \ce{2C + O2&->2CO}\tag{2}\\[1em] \ce{2CO + O2&->2CO2}\tag{3}\\[1.5em] [(2)+(3)]/2 &= (1)\end{align}$$
Since $G$ is a state function, why aren't the straight lines corresponding to these reactions in the Ellingham diagram concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$$\begin{align}\ce{C + O2&->CO2}\tag{1}\\[1em] \ce{2C + O2&->2CO}\tag{2}\\[1em] \ce{2CO + O2&->2CO2}\tag{3}\\[1.5em] [(2)+(3)]/2 &= (1)\end{align}$$
Since $G$ is a state function, why aren't the straight lines corresponding to these reactions in the Ellingham diagram concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following reactions:
$$\begin{align}\ce{C + O2&->CO2}\tag{1}\\[1em] \ce{2C + O2&->2CO}\tag{2}\\[1em] \ce{2CO + O2&->2CO2}\tag{3}\\[1.5em] [(2)+(3)]/2 &= (1)\end{align}$$
Since $G$ is a state function, why aren't the straight lines corresponding to these reactions in the Ellingham diagram concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$[(2)+(3)]\div2$ yields $(1)$$$\begin{align}\ce{C + O2&->CO2}\tag{1}\\[1em] \ce{2C + O2&->2CO}\tag{2}\\[1em] \ce{2CO + O2&->2CO2}\tag{3}\\[1.5em] [(2)+(3)]/2 &= (1)\end{align}$$
Since G$G$ is a state function so, why don'taren't the straight lines corresponding to these rxnsreactions in the ellingham Diagram areEllingham diagram concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$[(2)+(3)]\div2$ yields $(1)$
Since G is a state function so why don't the straight lines corresponding these rxns in the ellingham Diagram are concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$$\begin{align}\ce{C + O2&->CO2}\tag{1}\\[1em] \ce{2C + O2&->2CO}\tag{2}\\[1em] \ce{2CO + O2&->2CO2}\tag{3}\\[1.5em] [(2)+(3)]/2 &= (1)\end{align}$$
Since $G$ is a state function, why aren't the straight lines corresponding to these reactions in the Ellingham diagram concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$[(2)+(3)]\div2$ yields $(1)$
Since ∆GG is a state function so why don't the straight lines corresponding these rxns in the ellingham Diagram intersect at a pointare concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
Consider the following rxns:
$[(2)+(3)]\div2$ yields $(1)$
Since ∆G is a state function so why don't the straight lines corresponding these rxns in the ellingham Diagram intersect at a point?
Consider the following rxns:
$[(2)+(3)]\div2$ yields $(1)$
Since G is a state function so why don't the straight lines corresponding these rxns in the ellingham Diagram are concurrent?
I have checked the graph from other sites but found none to be concurrent. Is there some kind of error in data or extrapolation of the graphs or any other specific reason for this?
