Determining the empirical formula of Magnesium Oxide

  • Thread starter Thread starter bubbles1234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Magnesium
AI Thread Summary
If magnesium oxide smoke escapes during the experiment, the Mg:O ratio would decrease because there would be less magnesium present relative to oxygen. This is due to the loss of magnesium oxide, which affects the overall mass and ratio of the elements. The empirical formula remains MgO, but the specific ratio calculated from the experiment would reflect the loss. To demonstrate this mathematically, one would need to compare the initial and final masses of magnesium and oxygen. The conclusion is that the escape of magnesium oxide would lead to a decreased Mg:O ratio.
bubbles1234
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I already did the experiment but I'm trying to answer a question which asks"

Suppose that you allowed some magnesium oxide smoke to escape during the experiment. How would the Mg:O ratio have been affected? Would the ratio have decreased, increased or stayed the same? Explaine using calculations.


Homework Equations


I already know the empirical formula is MgO

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it will stay the same because you can't really reduce the ratio any furthur but I don't know how to show it using calculations. please help and thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bubbles1234 said:

Homework Statement


I already did the experiment but I'm trying to answer a question which asks"

Suppose that you allowed some magnesium oxide smoke to escape during the experiment. How would the Mg:O ratio have been affected? Would the ratio have decreased, increased or stayed the same? Explaine using calculations.


Homework Equations


I already know the empirical formula is MgO

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it will stay the same because you can't really reduce the ratio any furthur but I don't know how to show it using calculations. please help and thanks.

You are probably right however keep in mind that I do not know the context of the experiment.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top