1
$\begingroup$

I posted this question two weeks ago. It was closed today and I can not understand why. I thought it was a reasonable confusion since conflicting ideas appeared in most sources at a high school level that I could find.

I wish, by posting on the meta thread, that someone provide criticism of the question in order to explain the possible reasons why it was closed.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ You should probably provide more detail in that question, since you do not seem to completely grasp various different concepts and mixed them up. Beyond that, it is hard for others to understand which parts you understand and which you don't (concepts include physisorption, reversibility, standard free energy change, free energy change). For instance, some comments were left that suggest where you may be confused. Perhaps you could respond by addressing those comments? $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Aug 20 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Sometimes a question is labelled "homework" when people can't answer the question because there are too many threads to disentangle. Note this is not to argue that the topic is simple, it is certainly challenging. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Aug 20 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe yes, but I clearly put my question in the end, it is literally what is the correct energy change w/ physisorption. I don't know what in the post would make one assume I don't understand gibbs or physisorption on what it is. For the comments, I found Chet Miller's comment helpful, but it wasn't posted as an answer, so I just upvoted it. @BuckThorn $\endgroup$
    – 666User666
    Aug 21 at 3:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The point of comments is to seek clarification. This website is not supposed to function as a forum (where dialogue is emphasized). When a question is somehow unclear, comments are supposed to seek a reaction from the person who posted the question in order to improve it (comments might also explain why the post is not acceptable). Comments sometimes seek to disentangle your train of thought. In this case, Chet Miller was alerting you to the fact that while at equilibrium $\Delta G_m=0$, that does not mean that $\Delta G^\circ _m=0$. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Aug 21 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ You can also try to use chatrooms to seek clarification, for instance: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/74807/jee-chemistry-club and chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3229/the-periodic-table $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Aug 21 at 6:56
5
$\begingroup$

Especially after the edit, I don't think this needs to have been closed.

As a result, I have reopened the question.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .