Chemistry Which Method for Calculating Moles is More Effective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter supernova1203
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moles
AI Thread Summary
Both methods for calculating moles, n1=c1v1 and # of moles = mass/molar mass, are valid but applicable in different scenarios. The first method is useful for solutions, while the second is better for solid substances. The new method is essentially a rearrangement of the molar concentration formula. Additionally, there is a concern about a potential typo in the formula used for calculating moles of HCl, although the result was deemed correct. Understanding the context of each method is crucial for effective application.
supernova1203
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Do both of these methods for calculating the number of moles work?

we've learned a new method recently which i prefer over the older method for current curriculum

n1=c1v1

n for number of moles, c for concentration 1 and v for volume 1
and the old method is

# of moles = mass/molar mass

does the first method work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are asking to compare apples and oranges. How are you going to use the second method to calculate number of moles in 1 L of 0.3M solution, how are you going to use first method to calculate number of moles in 6g of carbon? Both approaches are correct, but they are used in completely different situations.

Besides, what you call a "new method" is just a rearranged molar concentration definition (which you probably should know by now):

C = \frac n V

solve for n.
 
Also there is another question, I am certain there's a typo here, if not see if this makes sense (attachment)
 

Attachments

  • Does this make sense.jpg
    Does this make sense.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 529
Formula used to calculate number of moles of HCl is wrong, but otherwise result is correct.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
11K
Back
Top