I really have to agree with above sentiment (too much chemistry! and electrochem. as well *shudder*) But after a long, arduous, mind aching five minutes with the gen chem appendix of standard reduction potentials I'd say the theory looks sound enough.
But...umm...you have taken into account the FeCl3 + Ag->FeCl2 + AgCl(s)rxn right? And by the numbers it's even more favorable than the FeCl3 + Cu-> FeCl2 + CuCl or even the 2FeCl3 + Cu-> 2FeCl2 + CuCl2.
However, you can always reduce the AgCl back to Ag or maybe just use Fe(NO3)3? Oh, but that would produce NO(g).
Comments 3
Reply
But...umm...you have taken into account the FeCl3 + Ag->FeCl2 + AgCl(s)rxn right? And by the numbers it's even more favorable than the FeCl3 + Cu-> FeCl2 + CuCl or even the 2FeCl3 + Cu-> 2FeCl2 + CuCl2.
However, you can always reduce the AgCl back to Ag or maybe just use Fe(NO3)3? Oh, but that would produce NO(g).
It is not a perfect world.
Reply
You should get an account, so I dont feel like I am replying to empty space.
Reply
Leave a comment