from wikipedia - can anyone confirm if this is accurate?

[lboogy]

Below is a quote from wikipedia refering to the factors that increase the rates of chemical reactions:

 

"Temperature: The kinetic energy of particles follows the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. An increase in temperature not only increases the average speed of the reactant particles and the number of collisions, but also the fraction of particles having kinetic energy higher than the activation energy. Thus, the effective collision frequency increases"

 

So, the above quote states there are 2 reasons why temp increases rate of reaction. 1) temp increases the average speed of particles. 2)increases the kinetic energy of particles.

 

I'm a little confused at this distinction as I thought kinetic energy was the energy that a thing had due to its movement. therefore the first piont in the quote is about faster movement so doesn't this just mean an increase in kinetic energy and therefore is the same as the second point?

[insane_alien]

the average velocity of the molecules and the fraction of molecules with sufficient energy to react are two different things.

 

its perfectly accurate. remember, wikipedia isn't ALL bad. it provides you with at least a rough idea and there are usually references down the bottom.

[D H]

So, the above quote states there are 2 reasons why temp increases rate of reaction. 1) temp increases the average speed of particles. 2)increases the kinetic energy of particles.

 

A link to the article would have been nice ...

 

The article is not the best written (it's free; you get what you pay for) but it is correct. A better interpretation is 1) temperature increases the number of collisions between particles and 2) temperature increases the fraction of collisions in which the activation potential is exceeded. Both effect to increase the reaction rate as temperature increases.

[lboogy]

thanks D H & Insane_alien

[Sisyphus]

(it's free; you get what you pay for)

 

Wouldn't that mean you get nothing?

[fredrik]

Sometimes people complain on wikipedia and while I'm sure there is as much crap in wikipedia as there is crap in papers, books and TV, I really like the philosophy of wikipedia and I think it is a great initiative and resource and anyone that wants to propagate their understanding can contribute.

 

There is no need that everything has to evolve around money. And I think beeing expensive by no means equals quality. I think sometimes commercialisation can even be detrimental to quality because the driving measure is profit, and you don't know what the purpose of the author is. Even in cases where things aren't plain false, they can be heavily distorted and presented in whatever way serves the purposes of the author - may it be political change or profit.

 

In the age of internet, the importance of making our own evaluations and consistency checks of information quality can't be understated. This applies to free as well as non-free media. I think this ranges from science to politics.

 

If I am to complain on anything, it's on the general lack of evaluation of information itself (beyond evaluating the source: is it free or expensive? is the author famous?). The fact that people trust others without forming their own opinion, is far more dangerous than the fact that people propagate odd or sometimes false information.

 

/Fredrik