in the last coupla years,i have found out that many peeps tend to not understand chemistry very well-or at the worst hate it-far more than any other science course.Whatever your problem is,so far its CHEMISTRY,bring it on.....and there is 1 more thing,if you are feeling CHEM-crazy,and you got some definitions you think might be helpful,just post it up on me,......lets all make chem simpler.....keep this thread alive dudes,don't be stingy and don't be shy...WELCOME BROS AND SISTOS

I 'was' a chemistry guru. I've been thinking.
My question is, is their a relationship between Le Cheteliers principle and and newton's law of inertia?

Reyginus: I 'was' a chemistry guru. I've been thinking.
My question is, is their a relationship between Le Cheteliers principle and and newton's law of inertia?

well i'll say that there is an analogy since in both cases, the system remains at equilibrium unless been disturbed by an external agent.

Richiez:
well i'll say that there is an analogy since in both cases, the system remains at equilibrium unless been disturbed by an external agent.

....thanks richiez,i really do appreciate that.......i created this thread after getting inspired by the way u guys handle d maths section..........yh,thanks bro

Richiez:
well i'll say that there is an analogy since in both cases, the system remains at equilibrium unless been disturbed by an external agent.

I have a problem with this answer.
Though it is true for the law of inertia, but not for Le chetalier's.
I think the reverse is the case. Like their similarity lie like an oxymoron.
In inertia, the system is at equillibrium unless when disturbed.
In le chatelier, the disturbed system is brought to equillibrium.
So, my friend, I don't think you established the link properly.

Reyginus: I have a problem with this answer.
Though it is true for the law of inertia, but not for Le chetalier's.
I think the reverse is the case. Like their similarity lie like an oxymoron.
In inertia, the system is at equillibrium unless when disturbed.
In le chatelier, the disturbed system is brought to equillibrium.
So, my friend, I don't think you established the link properly.

well, you have a good point. but even in inertia, unless the force is constantly acting on the body, the body tends to go back to rest with time, and for the Le chateliers principle, remember that we can assert that the system is in equilibrium before any external agent is applied, and after this disturbance, equilibrium is lost, now the system has to adjust to go back to equilibrium state now in both cases there is a natural tendency to
1. remain in equilibrium
2. loose equilibrium if an external agent is applied
3. adjust so as to go back to equilibrium state

Richiez:

well, you have a good point. but even in inertia, unless the force is constantly acting on the body, the body tends to go back to rest with time, and for the Le chateliers principle, remember that we can assert that the system is in equilibrium before any external agent is applied, and after this disturbance, equilibrium is lost, now the system has to adjust to go back to equilibrium state now in both cases there is a natural tendency to
1. remain in equilibrium
2. loose equilibrium if an external agent is applied
3. adjust so as to go back to equilibrium state

Nice. I have to agree to 2 and 3 but not 1.
In the sense that, for le chatelier's principle to come to fore, the system must be pulled out of equillibrium. A system cannot be said to be observing the principle when at equillibrium.
It holds for inertia alone.

Reyginus:
Nice. I have to agree to 2 and 3 but not 1.
In the sense that, for le chatelier's principle to come to fore, the system must be pulled out of equillibrium. A system cannot be said to be observing the principle when at equillibrium.
It holds for inertia alone.

now i get ur point, nice thinking

Nairaland Chemistry lovers c'mon!!!

Can anybody elucidate better on the complex rate law of HBR formation (chain reaction)

+ I think there's smth strange about d Michaelis-Menten equation. Has anybody else observe anything of such?

jaidor: Can anybody elucidate better on the complex rate law of HBR formation (chain reaction)

+ I think there's smth strange about d Michaelis-Menten equation. Has anybody else observe anything of such?

Here they come.
I think you're making it difficult for the op and everyone.
1. First of all, their is no chemical compound with the formular HBR. What we have is HBr, hydrogen bromide. Another thing is, for him to elucidate the rate law, you should also give the mechanism he's to build from.
2. Their is no equation like michaelis-menten in chemistry.

tanks reyginus,.......actually d question is somehow incomplete.....there are numerous ways d reaction completion is explicable.......maybe if d poster had specified more,i'm a uni fresher though,i created dis thread nt because i knw d answer to every question,buh because i want every1 to share and learn........so any1 that knows d answer to dat should please post it.....tanks fellas,lets keep this thread alive.....

jaidor: Can anybody elucidate better on the complex rate law of HBR formation (chain reaction) + I think there's smth strange about d Michaelis-Menten equation. Has anybody else observe anything of such?

the complex rate law of HBr formation is because the formation of HBr does not take place in a simple step. There are other intermediate steps. And for the michaelis-menten equation, it is used in analysis of reaction rates most especially for enzymatic reactions. in a nut shell, it relates the reaction rate (or velocity) with the concentration of the substrate. More explanation coming soon

Richiez:
the complex rate law of HBr formation is because the formation of HBr does not take place in a simple step. There are other intermediate steps. And for the michaelis-menten equation, it is used in analysis of reaction rates especially their half lives. More explanation coming soon

Nice one. Especially on the HBr rate law. But another thing I think is, if we're dealing with strictly chemistry , the equation shouldn't receive a similar treatment, because it's not. It can only be dealt with in a field inbetween the boundary of biology and chemistry. That is, biochemistry. I don't think it will fair to treat any law shared between two field of study, exclusively to only one.