Calculating Mass in a Calorimetry Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Branflake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calorimetry Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the mass of nickel heated to 100.0°C and placed in water, with the final temperature stabilizing at 25.82°C. The equation used is based on the principle that the heat lost by the nickel equals the heat gained by the water. The initial calculation yielded a mass of 136.6 grams for the nickel, raising concerns due to its higher value compared to previous lab results, which were between 20g and 70g. Participants confirmed the reasoning was correct but noted the heat capacity of the calorimeter was overlooked in the calculations. Overall, the individual is on the right track but should consider all factors, including the calorimeter's heat capacity.
Branflake
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



What is the mass of a piece of nickel metal if it is heated to 100.0°C and placed into 250.0 grams of water at 21.52°C in a calorimeter with a heat capacity of 95.3J/K and the temperature stabilizes at 25.82°C?

Homework Equations


-qnickel=+qwater

The Attempt at a Solution


Well this problem is on our review for thermochemistry, but non of the examples we have done or seen (even in the book) really go this far. Here is my first attempt.
-(cnickel X massnickel XΔTnickel)=cwater X masswater X ΔTwater
Plugging in the knowns I get :
Mass of nickel=(4.184J/g*K X 250.0g X 4.3K)/(0.444J/g*K X 74.18K)=136.6g of nickel
I got the specific heat for water through memorization and the specific heat for nickel through a periodic table. Was able to solve it, but for some reason it doesn't feel right. Can't find an example of something similar anywhere.
Am I on the right track at least?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where does your feeling come from? Can you pin it down?
Does the figure feel too high or too low?

Your reasoning is correct, heat lost by sample is gained by the water.
The calculation followed that. So the places you could make a mistake are in the constants (did you try verifying them?) or an arithmetic error or something like that.

Examples of this problem are easy to come by online.
Did you try looking?
http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/MixingMetal&Water.html
 
Simon Bridge said:
Where does your feeling come from? Can you pin it down?
Does the figure feel too high or too low?

Your reasoning is correct, heat lost by sample is gained by the water.
The calculation followed that. So the places you could make a mistake are in the constants (did you try verifying them?) or an arithmetic error or something like that.

Examples of this problem are easy to come by online.
Did you try looking?
http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/MixingMetal&Water.html

Thanks this makes me feel a little better about it. Honestly the main reason why I doubted myself is because in the lab we made similar calculations for finding everything but the mass of the metal, but the mass was always between 20g and 70g so my higher value made me concerned.

Also I found that same webpage earlier today, but only the first two problems would load. Thanks for posting it.
 
In general you are on the right track, but seems to me like you ignored heat capacity of the calorimeter.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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