Ammonia planet- atmosphere

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












On my previously asked question about the biochemistry of life on my ammonia. it leads me to my next question to ask.



enter image description here



first things first, the life on this planet is boron based. they breathe methane and drink ammonia. due to their biochemistry being boron based. I realized that the gases such as bromine, chlorine, oxygen and fluorine can't be in large quantities as they form strong bonds with boron making life difficult to form. but that leads to a big problem with complex intelligent boron life and their ability to make fire. because in order to form fire you need three things. fuel, ignition source, and an oxidizing agent. but without those 4 main gases. I lack an oxidizing agent



and so my question is, what gas in this alien atmosphere could be used as an alternative to those 4 oxidizers that wouldn't pose a threat to the formation of boron based life



let me know if I got any information wrong in my scenario. I hope this is clear enough to be answerable.



atmospheric composition if needed-
nitrogen- 93%
methane- 6%
hydrogen- 0.2%
other trace gases- ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene, propane, cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium 0.8%










share|improve this question

















  • 4




    Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
    – boxcartenant
    Aug 10 at 18:46











  • that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
    – Wither Fang136
    Aug 10 at 19:10














up vote
4
down vote

favorite












On my previously asked question about the biochemistry of life on my ammonia. it leads me to my next question to ask.



enter image description here



first things first, the life on this planet is boron based. they breathe methane and drink ammonia. due to their biochemistry being boron based. I realized that the gases such as bromine, chlorine, oxygen and fluorine can't be in large quantities as they form strong bonds with boron making life difficult to form. but that leads to a big problem with complex intelligent boron life and their ability to make fire. because in order to form fire you need three things. fuel, ignition source, and an oxidizing agent. but without those 4 main gases. I lack an oxidizing agent



and so my question is, what gas in this alien atmosphere could be used as an alternative to those 4 oxidizers that wouldn't pose a threat to the formation of boron based life



let me know if I got any information wrong in my scenario. I hope this is clear enough to be answerable.



atmospheric composition if needed-
nitrogen- 93%
methane- 6%
hydrogen- 0.2%
other trace gases- ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene, propane, cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium 0.8%










share|improve this question

















  • 4




    Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
    – boxcartenant
    Aug 10 at 18:46











  • that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
    – Wither Fang136
    Aug 10 at 19:10












up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











On my previously asked question about the biochemistry of life on my ammonia. it leads me to my next question to ask.



enter image description here



first things first, the life on this planet is boron based. they breathe methane and drink ammonia. due to their biochemistry being boron based. I realized that the gases such as bromine, chlorine, oxygen and fluorine can't be in large quantities as they form strong bonds with boron making life difficult to form. but that leads to a big problem with complex intelligent boron life and their ability to make fire. because in order to form fire you need three things. fuel, ignition source, and an oxidizing agent. but without those 4 main gases. I lack an oxidizing agent



and so my question is, what gas in this alien atmosphere could be used as an alternative to those 4 oxidizers that wouldn't pose a threat to the formation of boron based life



let me know if I got any information wrong in my scenario. I hope this is clear enough to be answerable.



atmospheric composition if needed-
nitrogen- 93%
methane- 6%
hydrogen- 0.2%
other trace gases- ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene, propane, cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium 0.8%










share|improve this question













On my previously asked question about the biochemistry of life on my ammonia. it leads me to my next question to ask.



enter image description here



first things first, the life on this planet is boron based. they breathe methane and drink ammonia. due to their biochemistry being boron based. I realized that the gases such as bromine, chlorine, oxygen and fluorine can't be in large quantities as they form strong bonds with boron making life difficult to form. but that leads to a big problem with complex intelligent boron life and their ability to make fire. because in order to form fire you need three things. fuel, ignition source, and an oxidizing agent. but without those 4 main gases. I lack an oxidizing agent



and so my question is, what gas in this alien atmosphere could be used as an alternative to those 4 oxidizers that wouldn't pose a threat to the formation of boron based life



let me know if I got any information wrong in my scenario. I hope this is clear enough to be answerable.



atmospheric composition if needed-
nitrogen- 93%
methane- 6%
hydrogen- 0.2%
other trace gases- ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene, propane, cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium 0.8%







chemistry biochemistry






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Aug 10 at 18:22









Wither Fang136

995




995







  • 4




    Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
    – boxcartenant
    Aug 10 at 18:46











  • that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
    – Wither Fang136
    Aug 10 at 19:10












  • 4




    Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
    – boxcartenant
    Aug 10 at 18:46











  • that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
    – Wither Fang136
    Aug 10 at 19:10







4




4




Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
– boxcartenant
Aug 10 at 18:46





Fire may have been a first step for our civilization, but it's not 100% necessary for the development of any technology at all. Your planet could jump straight to bio electricity using some kind of naturally occurring microbial fuel cell (nature.com/articles/ncomms15419). If they need heat, they could heat metal by putting a there-common fungus on it, which passes current through it and dies. They could do all kinds of neat things with these biological batteries. The technology would (and I think should) develop in a totally different direction from the way we developed on earth.
– boxcartenant
Aug 10 at 18:46













that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
– Wither Fang136
Aug 10 at 19:10




that's an interesting idea. i'll keep that in mind
– Wither Fang136
Aug 10 at 19:10










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













There really isn't one. What you have there is a heavily reducing atmosphere; any strongly oxidizing gasses will have very short lifetimes, existing only in small quantities and needing to be constantly replenished, either by geochemical or biological activity. No oxidizing gas will support fire in an environment that is otherwise as you have described it.



But, that doesn't mean you can't have fire at all. You just need to flip the roles of oxidizer and fuel. Organisms on this world may produce oxidizers as part of their own metabolism, such that particular tissues are more or less chemically oxidizing, and can react with the reducing gasses in the air; i.e., atmospheric methane and hydrogen may react with biologically-produced hydrazine, nitrogen oxides, peroxides, etc., present in biological tissues.



Alternately, or additionally, both oxidizing and reducing agents may be available in liquid and/or solid form, such that no atmospheric gasses are required for the reaction at all. In other words, the inhabitants of this world may produce materials analogous to guncotton, gunpowder, or various solid rocket fuels which most obviously could be contained in bombs (quite useful for some purposes, not so much for things like cooking or metallurgy), but which could also be used to construct torches or smolder-furnaces for intense directed heat or long-term lower-power heat production, respectively.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Your oxidizer is acetylene. Your fuel is hydrogen.



    It would be different in that the roles are be reversed, but it is a reducing planet where it is all reversed. Gathering fuel would be gathering acetylene, here the oxidizer. You would "burn" it with the atmospheric hydrogen, reducing it to methane. Hydrogenation of acetylene is an energetically favorable process (see below) but only a quarter as energetic as oxidizing methane to CO2. But you would get heat and hot CH4 (flame!) and so you could call it fire.



    Reducing fires might require strong air currents to provide adequate H2 - methods like a bellows or chimney could work.



    https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/HessLawIntro3.html




    Example #1: Hydrogenation of double and triple bonds is an important
    industrial process. Calculate (in kJ) the standard enthalpy change ΔH
    for the hydrogenation of ethyne (acetylene) to ethane:



    H−C≡C−H(g) + 2H2(g) ---> H3C−CH3(g)



    Bond enthalpies (in kJ/mol): C−C (347); C≡C (839); C−H (413); H−H
    (432)



    Solution:



    1) You have to put energy into a bond (any bond) to break it. Bond
    breaking is endothermic. Let's break all the bonds of the reactants:



    one C≡C ⇒ +839 kJ two C−H ⇒ 413 x 2 = +826 kJ two H−H ⇒ 432 x 2 =
    +864 kJ The sum is +2529 kJ



    Note there are two C−H bonds in one molecule of C2H2 and there is one
    H−H bond in each of two H2 molecules. Two different types of reasons
    for multiplying by two.



    2) You get energy out when a bond (any bond) forms. Bond making is
    exothermic. Let's make all the bonds of the one product:



    one C−C ⇒ −347 kJ six C−H ⇒ −413 x 6 = −2478 The sum is −2826 kJ



    3) ΔH = the energies required to break bonds (positive sign) plus the
    energies required to make bonds (negative sign):



    +2529 + (−2825) = −296 kJ/mol







    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121011%2fammonia-planet-atmosphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      5
      down vote













      There really isn't one. What you have there is a heavily reducing atmosphere; any strongly oxidizing gasses will have very short lifetimes, existing only in small quantities and needing to be constantly replenished, either by geochemical or biological activity. No oxidizing gas will support fire in an environment that is otherwise as you have described it.



      But, that doesn't mean you can't have fire at all. You just need to flip the roles of oxidizer and fuel. Organisms on this world may produce oxidizers as part of their own metabolism, such that particular tissues are more or less chemically oxidizing, and can react with the reducing gasses in the air; i.e., atmospheric methane and hydrogen may react with biologically-produced hydrazine, nitrogen oxides, peroxides, etc., present in biological tissues.



      Alternately, or additionally, both oxidizing and reducing agents may be available in liquid and/or solid form, such that no atmospheric gasses are required for the reaction at all. In other words, the inhabitants of this world may produce materials analogous to guncotton, gunpowder, or various solid rocket fuels which most obviously could be contained in bombs (quite useful for some purposes, not so much for things like cooking or metallurgy), but which could also be used to construct torches or smolder-furnaces for intense directed heat or long-term lower-power heat production, respectively.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        5
        down vote













        There really isn't one. What you have there is a heavily reducing atmosphere; any strongly oxidizing gasses will have very short lifetimes, existing only in small quantities and needing to be constantly replenished, either by geochemical or biological activity. No oxidizing gas will support fire in an environment that is otherwise as you have described it.



        But, that doesn't mean you can't have fire at all. You just need to flip the roles of oxidizer and fuel. Organisms on this world may produce oxidizers as part of their own metabolism, such that particular tissues are more or less chemically oxidizing, and can react with the reducing gasses in the air; i.e., atmospheric methane and hydrogen may react with biologically-produced hydrazine, nitrogen oxides, peroxides, etc., present in biological tissues.



        Alternately, or additionally, both oxidizing and reducing agents may be available in liquid and/or solid form, such that no atmospheric gasses are required for the reaction at all. In other words, the inhabitants of this world may produce materials analogous to guncotton, gunpowder, or various solid rocket fuels which most obviously could be contained in bombs (quite useful for some purposes, not so much for things like cooking or metallurgy), but which could also be used to construct torches or smolder-furnaces for intense directed heat or long-term lower-power heat production, respectively.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          There really isn't one. What you have there is a heavily reducing atmosphere; any strongly oxidizing gasses will have very short lifetimes, existing only in small quantities and needing to be constantly replenished, either by geochemical or biological activity. No oxidizing gas will support fire in an environment that is otherwise as you have described it.



          But, that doesn't mean you can't have fire at all. You just need to flip the roles of oxidizer and fuel. Organisms on this world may produce oxidizers as part of their own metabolism, such that particular tissues are more or less chemically oxidizing, and can react with the reducing gasses in the air; i.e., atmospheric methane and hydrogen may react with biologically-produced hydrazine, nitrogen oxides, peroxides, etc., present in biological tissues.



          Alternately, or additionally, both oxidizing and reducing agents may be available in liquid and/or solid form, such that no atmospheric gasses are required for the reaction at all. In other words, the inhabitants of this world may produce materials analogous to guncotton, gunpowder, or various solid rocket fuels which most obviously could be contained in bombs (quite useful for some purposes, not so much for things like cooking or metallurgy), but which could also be used to construct torches or smolder-furnaces for intense directed heat or long-term lower-power heat production, respectively.






          share|improve this answer












          There really isn't one. What you have there is a heavily reducing atmosphere; any strongly oxidizing gasses will have very short lifetimes, existing only in small quantities and needing to be constantly replenished, either by geochemical or biological activity. No oxidizing gas will support fire in an environment that is otherwise as you have described it.



          But, that doesn't mean you can't have fire at all. You just need to flip the roles of oxidizer and fuel. Organisms on this world may produce oxidizers as part of their own metabolism, such that particular tissues are more or less chemically oxidizing, and can react with the reducing gasses in the air; i.e., atmospheric methane and hydrogen may react with biologically-produced hydrazine, nitrogen oxides, peroxides, etc., present in biological tissues.



          Alternately, or additionally, both oxidizing and reducing agents may be available in liquid and/or solid form, such that no atmospheric gasses are required for the reaction at all. In other words, the inhabitants of this world may produce materials analogous to guncotton, gunpowder, or various solid rocket fuels which most obviously could be contained in bombs (quite useful for some purposes, not so much for things like cooking or metallurgy), but which could also be used to construct torches or smolder-furnaces for intense directed heat or long-term lower-power heat production, respectively.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Aug 10 at 18:34









          Logan R. Kearsley

          9,08312747




          9,08312747




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Your oxidizer is acetylene. Your fuel is hydrogen.



              It would be different in that the roles are be reversed, but it is a reducing planet where it is all reversed. Gathering fuel would be gathering acetylene, here the oxidizer. You would "burn" it with the atmospheric hydrogen, reducing it to methane. Hydrogenation of acetylene is an energetically favorable process (see below) but only a quarter as energetic as oxidizing methane to CO2. But you would get heat and hot CH4 (flame!) and so you could call it fire.



              Reducing fires might require strong air currents to provide adequate H2 - methods like a bellows or chimney could work.



              https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/HessLawIntro3.html




              Example #1: Hydrogenation of double and triple bonds is an important
              industrial process. Calculate (in kJ) the standard enthalpy change ΔH
              for the hydrogenation of ethyne (acetylene) to ethane:



              H−C≡C−H(g) + 2H2(g) ---> H3C−CH3(g)



              Bond enthalpies (in kJ/mol): C−C (347); C≡C (839); C−H (413); H−H
              (432)



              Solution:



              1) You have to put energy into a bond (any bond) to break it. Bond
              breaking is endothermic. Let's break all the bonds of the reactants:



              one C≡C ⇒ +839 kJ two C−H ⇒ 413 x 2 = +826 kJ two H−H ⇒ 432 x 2 =
              +864 kJ The sum is +2529 kJ



              Note there are two C−H bonds in one molecule of C2H2 and there is one
              H−H bond in each of two H2 molecules. Two different types of reasons
              for multiplying by two.



              2) You get energy out when a bond (any bond) forms. Bond making is
              exothermic. Let's make all the bonds of the one product:



              one C−C ⇒ −347 kJ six C−H ⇒ −413 x 6 = −2478 The sum is −2826 kJ



              3) ΔH = the energies required to break bonds (positive sign) plus the
              energies required to make bonds (negative sign):



              +2529 + (−2825) = −296 kJ/mol







              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Your oxidizer is acetylene. Your fuel is hydrogen.



                It would be different in that the roles are be reversed, but it is a reducing planet where it is all reversed. Gathering fuel would be gathering acetylene, here the oxidizer. You would "burn" it with the atmospheric hydrogen, reducing it to methane. Hydrogenation of acetylene is an energetically favorable process (see below) but only a quarter as energetic as oxidizing methane to CO2. But you would get heat and hot CH4 (flame!) and so you could call it fire.



                Reducing fires might require strong air currents to provide adequate H2 - methods like a bellows or chimney could work.



                https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/HessLawIntro3.html




                Example #1: Hydrogenation of double and triple bonds is an important
                industrial process. Calculate (in kJ) the standard enthalpy change ΔH
                for the hydrogenation of ethyne (acetylene) to ethane:



                H−C≡C−H(g) + 2H2(g) ---> H3C−CH3(g)



                Bond enthalpies (in kJ/mol): C−C (347); C≡C (839); C−H (413); H−H
                (432)



                Solution:



                1) You have to put energy into a bond (any bond) to break it. Bond
                breaking is endothermic. Let's break all the bonds of the reactants:



                one C≡C ⇒ +839 kJ two C−H ⇒ 413 x 2 = +826 kJ two H−H ⇒ 432 x 2 =
                +864 kJ The sum is +2529 kJ



                Note there are two C−H bonds in one molecule of C2H2 and there is one
                H−H bond in each of two H2 molecules. Two different types of reasons
                for multiplying by two.



                2) You get energy out when a bond (any bond) forms. Bond making is
                exothermic. Let's make all the bonds of the one product:



                one C−C ⇒ −347 kJ six C−H ⇒ −413 x 6 = −2478 The sum is −2826 kJ



                3) ΔH = the energies required to break bonds (positive sign) plus the
                energies required to make bonds (negative sign):



                +2529 + (−2825) = −296 kJ/mol







                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Your oxidizer is acetylene. Your fuel is hydrogen.



                  It would be different in that the roles are be reversed, but it is a reducing planet where it is all reversed. Gathering fuel would be gathering acetylene, here the oxidizer. You would "burn" it with the atmospheric hydrogen, reducing it to methane. Hydrogenation of acetylene is an energetically favorable process (see below) but only a quarter as energetic as oxidizing methane to CO2. But you would get heat and hot CH4 (flame!) and so you could call it fire.



                  Reducing fires might require strong air currents to provide adequate H2 - methods like a bellows or chimney could work.



                  https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/HessLawIntro3.html




                  Example #1: Hydrogenation of double and triple bonds is an important
                  industrial process. Calculate (in kJ) the standard enthalpy change ΔH
                  for the hydrogenation of ethyne (acetylene) to ethane:



                  H−C≡C−H(g) + 2H2(g) ---> H3C−CH3(g)



                  Bond enthalpies (in kJ/mol): C−C (347); C≡C (839); C−H (413); H−H
                  (432)



                  Solution:



                  1) You have to put energy into a bond (any bond) to break it. Bond
                  breaking is endothermic. Let's break all the bonds of the reactants:



                  one C≡C ⇒ +839 kJ two C−H ⇒ 413 x 2 = +826 kJ two H−H ⇒ 432 x 2 =
                  +864 kJ The sum is +2529 kJ



                  Note there are two C−H bonds in one molecule of C2H2 and there is one
                  H−H bond in each of two H2 molecules. Two different types of reasons
                  for multiplying by two.



                  2) You get energy out when a bond (any bond) forms. Bond making is
                  exothermic. Let's make all the bonds of the one product:



                  one C−C ⇒ −347 kJ six C−H ⇒ −413 x 6 = −2478 The sum is −2826 kJ



                  3) ΔH = the energies required to break bonds (positive sign) plus the
                  energies required to make bonds (negative sign):



                  +2529 + (−2825) = −296 kJ/mol







                  share|improve this answer












                  Your oxidizer is acetylene. Your fuel is hydrogen.



                  It would be different in that the roles are be reversed, but it is a reducing planet where it is all reversed. Gathering fuel would be gathering acetylene, here the oxidizer. You would "burn" it with the atmospheric hydrogen, reducing it to methane. Hydrogenation of acetylene is an energetically favorable process (see below) but only a quarter as energetic as oxidizing methane to CO2. But you would get heat and hot CH4 (flame!) and so you could call it fire.



                  Reducing fires might require strong air currents to provide adequate H2 - methods like a bellows or chimney could work.



                  https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/HessLawIntro3.html




                  Example #1: Hydrogenation of double and triple bonds is an important
                  industrial process. Calculate (in kJ) the standard enthalpy change ΔH
                  for the hydrogenation of ethyne (acetylene) to ethane:



                  H−C≡C−H(g) + 2H2(g) ---> H3C−CH3(g)



                  Bond enthalpies (in kJ/mol): C−C (347); C≡C (839); C−H (413); H−H
                  (432)



                  Solution:



                  1) You have to put energy into a bond (any bond) to break it. Bond
                  breaking is endothermic. Let's break all the bonds of the reactants:



                  one C≡C ⇒ +839 kJ two C−H ⇒ 413 x 2 = +826 kJ two H−H ⇒ 432 x 2 =
                  +864 kJ The sum is +2529 kJ



                  Note there are two C−H bonds in one molecule of C2H2 and there is one
                  H−H bond in each of two H2 molecules. Two different types of reasons
                  for multiplying by two.



                  2) You get energy out when a bond (any bond) forms. Bond making is
                  exothermic. Let's make all the bonds of the one product:



                  one C−C ⇒ −347 kJ six C−H ⇒ −413 x 6 = −2478 The sum is −2826 kJ



                  3) ΔH = the energies required to break bonds (positive sign) plus the
                  energies required to make bonds (negative sign):



                  +2529 + (−2825) = −296 kJ/mol








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 10 at 21:25









                  Willk

                  87.1k22171375




                  87.1k22171375



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121011%2fammonia-planet-atmosphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?