Timeline for contradiction between Gibbs energy variation and redox potential
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/781928900414898178 | ||
| Sep 29, 2016 at 14:08 | answer | added | DavePhD | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 11:24 | history | edited | Curt F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2016 at 9:56 | answer | added | porphyrin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 27, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | scutigera | Yes you are right, there were some typos in the $NO3^-/N_2$ half-reaction. However this doesn't affect the conclusion. For the record, those redox potentials come from Stumm and Morgan, 1996 | |
| Sep 27, 2016 at 16:05 | history | edited | scutigera | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | orthocresol | Apart from that, I can't see anything wrong with your line of reasoning. There are a couple of typos ($\ce{NO3+}$, and $\Delta G = -nFE$ (minus sign is missing)) but they don't affect the logic. Perhaps I am being dense too, I don't know. | |
| Sep 27, 2016 at 15:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 27, 2016 at 16:08 | |||||
| Sep 27, 2016 at 15:35 | comment | added | orthocresol | Assuming that you have made no maths errors in calculating $\Delta G$ from the Gibbs energies of formation, I think the first thing I would check is your reduction potential for $\ce{NO3-}/\ce{N2}$. That half-equation you have written is not balanced and I couldn't find the value for the reduction potential (I did a brief search in Atkins as well as Wikipedia). | |
| Sep 27, 2016 at 15:24 | history | asked | scutigera | CC BY-SA 3.0 |