September 20, 2021, 09:27:12 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Equilibrium Concentration Need Help  (Read 442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ralphguy

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Equilibrium Concentration Need Help
« on: July 30, 2021, 02:02:40 AM »
Hi, I have been trying to figure this out for the past five hours. I still don't understand how I can solve for Keq (Equilibrium Constant) with the following data. When I try to solve for Keq, my denominator will just become 0 because of my [SCN-] is 0 M. Could there have possibly been an error? or do I just disregard the 0 M?

Thanks in advance.

Edit:
The reaction equation is Fe3+(aq) + SCN–(aq) ⇄ FeSCN2+(aq)

Offline Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26747
  • Mole Snacks: +1733/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: Equilibrium Concentration Need Help
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2021, 04:16:47 AM »
Something is wrong with these numbers, where you got them from?
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info, pH-meter.info

Offline Ralphguy

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: Equilibrium Concentration Need Help
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2021, 04:26:04 AM »
Hi, I also have the same thought, but I just followed whatever the professor taught us through a 9-minute video. The professor told us to apparently subtract the moles of SCN- to Fe3+ to get the equilibrium moles of Fe3+. I am genuinely very confused right now even the top students in my class are getting the same results that I got.

Offline Ralphguy

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: Equilibrium Concentration Need Help
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2021, 05:02:52 AM »
Something is wrong with these numbers, where you got them from?

I think I finally figured it out. I just followed what my primary chemistry professor taught me. Thank you so much for pointing out that the figure was incorrect.

Sponsored Links