Calculating IR Energy: 1.614 x 107 MHz

  • Thread starter Thread starter stacker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Ir
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the energy of infrared radiation with a frequency of 1.614 x 10^7 MHz. The correct energy calculation yields 6.44 kJ/mol after converting from joules to kilojoules and applying Avogadro's number. A participant raises a question about the unit conversion involving atoms and moles, seeking clarification on how multiplying by Avogadro's number maintains the kJ/mol unit. The original calculation faced issues due to improper unit conversions. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of unit consistency in energy calculations.
stacker
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



What is the energy (in kJ/mol) of infrared radiation that has a frequency of 1.614 x 107 MHz?

Homework Equations



E = nhv

The Attempt at a Solution



3 x 6.63 x 10^-34 (J x s) multiplied by 1.614 x 10^7 (MHz) multiplied by (10^6 Hz/1 MHz) multiplied by (1 kJ/ 1000J) = 3.210246 x 10^-20, which is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


E = hv
v=1.614x10^13 hz
h = 6.63x10^-34
E = 1.07x10^-20 J
E/1000 = kJ
E = 1.07x10^-23 kJ
per mole
1.07x10^-23 * (6.02 x 10^23 atoms/mol)
E = 6.44 kJ/mol

hope that is clear, any questions let me know :)
 


nickdk said:
E = hv
v=1.614x10^13 hz
h = 6.63x10^-34
E = 1.07x10^-20 J
E/1000 = kJ
E = 1.07x10^-23 kJ
per mole
1.07x10^-23 * (6.02 x 10^23 atoms/mol)
E = 6.44 kJ/mol

hope that is clear, any questions let me know :)

Yes that's the right answer! But I'm still having trouble understanding why, in terms of units, you can multiply the last step by (6.02 x 10^23 atoms/mol) and still get units of (kJ/mol). When did the unit of "atoms" appear?

Reflection: I made the mistake of not properly converting the Si-Units of "Mega-x" to "x" and neglected the aspect of moles.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top