[briteyellowness]

at equilibrium, G=0, does K =1?
G=-RTlnK

0 = -RTln1

and ln1 equals 0...?
yes....

[Blueshawk]

Mathematically yes..   0= -RTlnK   divide out -R and T   0=lnK    raise each side by e

e⁰ = e^lnK     1=K  

[Winga]

at equilibrium, G=0, does K =1?
G=-RTlnK

0 = -RTln1

and ln1 equals 0...?
yes....

G = G' + RTlnK
at eqm, G = 0
G' = -RTlnK

[Blueshawk]

From winga's post  I am wrong, but with the equation I was given my statement was true.  But thank you Winga for clearing up the equation....its been awhile since I used it...so I answered it without realizing that G' is to be included.

[briteyellowness]

thanks mcat cramming has gotten my mind turned to mush, but blueshawk, you were right cuz i meant G'.

UGHHHHHHHHH