You are Here: Home

# electrode potentials equation Watch

1. Hi,

When working out the e.m.f value I believe you do the

cathode (more positive number) - anode (more negative number)

so for cr3+ +3e- --> cr ( -o.74)
and cd2+ + 2e- --> Cd (-0.40)

I'd do -0.40 - (-0.74)
and get 0.34 ( a positive value so the reaction is feasible)

This appears to be the right answer, but in this book I have there is a question...

Fe3+ Ag --> fe2+ Ag+

Fe3+ e- --> fe2+ is 0.77v
and
Ag+ --> Ag + e- is 0.88v

when I do cathode -anode I get 0.88 -(o.77) to get 0.11v so its feasible, but the answer is that it is not feasible.

Why? If I write then the other way round I get a negative answer, but I thought it was cathode-anode and the more negative being at the anode.
If its because of the direction of eq being left for the anode, how come it isn't in the question I did above and got right?

Thanks in advance! rep for you if you can help
2. (Original post by AishaTara)
Hi,

When working out the e.m.f value I believe you do the

cathode (more positive number) - anode (more negative number)

so for cr3+ +3e- --> cr ( -o.74)
and cd2+ + 2e- --> Cd (-0.40)

I'd do -0.40 - (-0.74)
and get 0.34 ( a positive value so the reaction is feasible)

This appears to be the right answer, but in this book I have there is a question...

Fe3+ Ag --> fe2+ Ag+

Fe3+ e- --> fe2+ is 0.77v
and
Ag+ --> Ag + e- is 0.88v

when I do cathode -anode I get 0.88 -(o.77) to get 0.11v so its feasible, but the answer is that it is not feasible.

Why? If I write then the other way round I get a negative answer, but I thought it was cathode-anode and the more negative being at the anode.
If its because of the direction of eq being left for the anode, how come it isn't in the question I did above and got right?

Thanks in advance! rep for you if you can help
To decide on feasibility you do E(red) - E(ox)

In the proposed reaction the iron(III) gets reduced and the silver gets oxidised, so the sum is 0.77 - 0.88 = -0.11V
3. (Original post by charco)
To decide on feasibility you do E(red) - E(ox)

In the proposed reaction the iron(III) gets reduced and the silver gets oxidised, so the sum is 0.77 - 0.88 = -0.11V
my teacher was saying the lower value (more negative) one is at the anode.:O

4. (Original post by AishaTara)
Hi,

When working out the e.m.f value I believe you do the

cathode (more positive number) - anode (more negative number)

so for cr3+ +3e- --> cr ( -o.74)
and cd2+ + 2e- --> Cd (-0.40)

I'd do -0.40 - (-0.74)
and get 0.34 ( a positive value so the reaction is feasible)

This appears to be the right answer, but in this book I have there is a question...

Fe3+ Ag --> fe2+ Ag+

Fe3+ e- --> fe2+ is 0.77v
and
Ag+ --> Ag + e- is 0.88v

when I do cathode -anode I get 0.88 -(o.77) to get 0.11v so its feasible, but the answer is that it is not feasible.

Why? If I write then the other way round I get a negative answer, but I thought it was cathode-anode and the more negative being at the anode.
If its because of the direction of eq being left for the anode, how come it isn't in the question I did above and got right?

Thanks in advance! rep for you if you can help
If you look at the given equation Fe 3 + Ag-- > Fe 3+ Ag +
You can see the forward reaction (hence the cathode) is Fe 3 +e --->fe 2+ which is 0.77
So cathode- anode =0.77-0.88=-0.11

Hope that clears it up.
5. (Original post by eggfriedrice)
If you look at the given equation Fe 3 + Ag-- > Fe 3+ Ag +
You can see the forward reaction (hence the cathode) is Fe 3 +e --->fe 2+ which is 0.77
So cathode- anode =0.77-0.88=-0.11

Hope that clears it up.
thank you! it makes sense, using OIL RIG and then the cathode'anode

I'm not sure why my teacher said the anode is always the negative value out of the too (so in this case 0.77)
if that was the case, all reactions would have a positive value and would be feasible.

Nevermind, atleast its clear to me.
6. (Original post by AishaTara)
thank you! it makes sense, using OIL RIG and then the cathode'anode

I'm not sure why my teacher said the anode is always the negative value out of the too (so in this case 0.77)
if that was the case, all reactions would have a positive value and would be feasible.

Nevermind, atleast its clear to me.
She probably meant in a feasible electrochemical cell the anode is always the positive value (: (since anode is the positive electrode, and cathode is the negative electrode ).
7. (Original post by eggfriedrice)
She probably meant in a feasible electrochemical cell the anode is always the positive value (: (since anode is the positive electrode, and cathode is the negative electrode ).
In an electrochemical cell the anode is the NEGATIVE half cell. For example in a zinc/copper electrochemical cell the Zn2+|Zn half cell is the negative anode in which Zn --> Zn2+ + 2e

This is the opposite of an electrolytic cell. Oxidation always occurs at the anode and reduction at the cathode in both types of cell...
8. (Original post by charco)
In an electrochemical cell the anode is the NEGATIVE half cell. For example in a zinc/copper electrochemical cell the Zn2+|Zn half cell is the negative anode in which Zn --> Zn2+ + 2e

This is the opposite of an electrolytic cell. Oxidation always occurs at the anode and reduction at the cathode in both types of cell...
Ah my bad, I meant oxidation occurs in the more negative electrode, I didn't realise they switched the terms of anode and cathode around ^^; that just confuses things. I'm more of a physicist so I assumed the more negative electrode would be the cathode.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 1, 2013
Today on TSR

### I don't drink alcohol...

Is freshers still worth it?

### Girlfriend wants me to make her cry...

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
Poll
Discussions on TSR

• Latest

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.