Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chemistry Question: H2, N2, NH3  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

If I remember correctly, these three gases maintain the same concentration when they are together in the same container, balanced. However, if one concentration is changed, is it true that the others will change [their chemical form] to rebalance it?

Balanced chem. eqn: 3 H2 + 2 N2 <=> 2 NH3

For example, say I pump in N2 and NH3 at a certain rate into a closed container, can the immediate reaction of sorts create H2 gas so it can be pumped out of the system, and further adding in more N2 and NH3 would render more H2?

I think I am sure that the opposite is how NH3 is produced in the lab.

Moreover, yes, I do have an underlying agenda, however it is of no current importance if my thoughts about this react aren’t true.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

First of all, your equation is not balanced. 3H2 + N2 = 2NH3, which is ammonia gas. Nitrogen is a binary element which means it appears as N2 in it's natural form. As for your question, the answer is NO. The only way to produce any of the elemental gasses would be to break down the compound gas. Adding more of the initial elements would only create another compound.

Hope this helps.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Thanks Galilee, so what condistions are required to break down the compound gas and can it be done rapidly?


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2838 times:

Now thats a complicated question. If you are refering specifically 2NH3 ammonia gas, I cannot answer that without doing research. I do believe, however, that ammonia gas cannot be broken down in any conventional sense. As is the case with many gasses, you can produce them but not break them down. Other gasses like CO2 can be broken down. In fact, plants do this to produce oxygen. Off hand, I do not know how they do it but it is general knowledge that it can be done.

BTW, you are not planning to create any sort of explosive device are you?  Big grin


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Well, this is a topic that has been discussed very recently in my chemistry class, so hopefully I can be of some help.

The reaction you described is reversible, so it is possible for the NH3 to decompose back into H2 and N2 if the reaction conditions are changed. This can be proven through Le Chatlier's principle, which states that if a stress is applied to a system in dynamic equilibrium, the system changes to relieve the stress.

Changing the amount of any reactant or product in a system at equilibrium disturbs the equilibrium. For example, if some of the NH3 were taken away, some of the H2 and N2 would react to form more NH3 in order to maintain the equilibrium between products and reactants. Likewise, if NH3 were added, there would be a corresponding increase in the concentration of the reactants.

One way to increase the concentration of the reactants (H2 and N2) would be to decrease the external pressure on the system. Because four molecules of reactants are used for every two molecules of ammonia (product) made, the concentration of the reactants would increase as the system would compensate for the decrease in pressure. The same would be true in reverse.

Temperature would also have an impact. The said reaction is exothermic (heat is released), so a decrease in temperature would result in an increase in the concentration of products and an increase in temperature would result in an increase in the concentration of the reactants.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Galilee"you are not planning to create any sort of explosive device are you? " -- Of course not, I just thought of an idea of an attachment to a jet engine's intake to remove the N2 from the incoming air, reducing the NOx compounds altogether, but I don't know if it will work.

EIPremier: I guess then this reverse reaction would only work is a slow-running closed sytem, eh? Certainly not in a rapid environment like the intake of jet. Just a thought.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

EIPremier: You are correct and I won't contradict what you said, however, you'll notice that I said it cannot be broken down in any conventional sense. The reason I say this is because what you say is true onlyin theory. In actual thermodynamics it would take an infinate time for the system reach equilibrium, espeacially in a reaction such as ammonia synthesis. Ammonia synthesis takes place in a fixed bed catalytic reactor in which the reactants are fed in at a continuous rate at a set temperature and pressure range. Anything outside that range would not produce a reaction.

Lehpron, I was only joking about the explosive thing. Why do you want to remove the NO2 or whatever?


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

Galilee: Well, I was just thinking about why Concorde's engines suck so much, it is because they produce harmful NOx (nitrogen compounds) which damage the fragle O3 (ozone) layer in the stratosphere. I thought if the N2 was removed from the intake, then the overall engine combustion would deal only with the H2 from the chemical filter/separation, the O2 from the air and the fuel, which would only produce CO2 and H2O -- no harmful pollutants.

But if the chemical filter/separation wouldn't operate fast enough then there is no way to save future supersonics as they, for whatever reason, require flight in the ozone -- which is not popular with the environmental crowd. The nitrogen gas doesn't interact with the fuel burn, it just disassociates in the intense heat generation and attaches to oxygen.

Noise/chemical pollution and the sonic boom is what environmentalists hate about SST's, I thought if I could get rid of one, I'd gain their trust. It must be a pipe-dream, huh?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Very valiant effort. I'm not sure about how the all the ozone stuff works, but I have the impression that the majority of harm to O3 is caused by carbon compounds. I admitt that I may be wrong but if you could give me an example of the most common nitrogen compounds released by jet burns, I'd like to research it a bit.

Remember, CO2 is not that good for the ozone. That in particular is the main reason for protecting our rain forrests because they clean the air of CO2. Also, many nitrogen compounds exist naturally in the atmosphere, and even NH3 is realesed in large quantities by waste management facilities with no adverse affects on the ozone.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chain Restaurant Uniform Question posted Sun Aug 30 2009 21:18:33 by TSS
Trolley Bus Question posted Sat Aug 29 2009 22:13:53 by Seb146
Domain Registration Question. posted Mon Aug 24 2009 14:44:37 by Cumulus
Onboard Network On Laptop Dead. Question posted Mon Aug 24 2009 14:31:06 by VonRichtofen
Senate History Question posted Fri Aug 14 2009 17:43:26 by Seb146
Car Tire Question posted Wed Aug 5 2009 14:06:56 by JFK69
Itunes Duplicate Song Question posted Sat Jul 25 2009 07:44:27 by Greasespot
Please Help - Condo "Move In" Fee (question) posted Fri Jul 24 2009 18:30:33 by Vio
Any Oasis Fans Here? I've Got A Question! posted Fri Jul 17 2009 13:04:33 by LH4116
IMac Question posted Sat Jul 4 2009 16:55:01 by AKLDELNonstop
Excel VBA Question (yes HERE, Why Not...) posted Sun May 20 2012 02:48:59 by Airstud
Nook Color Question posted Sat Dec 18 2010 09:09:10 by corey07850
US Postal Delivery Question. posted Fri Dec 17 2010 23:28:52 by wardialer
German Weather Question posted Thu Dec 16 2010 21:22:58 by Indy
Death Penalty- A Moral Question posted Fri Oct 22 2010 17:58:10 by eaa3
Random Question(s) posted Fri Oct 8 2010 13:58:07 by aloges
BBC Question Time Thursday 7th October posted Wed Oct 6 2010 08:12:31 by dc10bhx
Question On Runways In Jakarta CGK posted Fri Oct 1 2010 17:01:53 by AMX748
Question For Big XII Fans posted Fri Sep 3 2010 13:28:23 by Alias1024