Calculating Mass of Galena Converted to Lead Oxide: Quick Heat Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter cheechnchong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the mass of galena (PbS) converted to lead (II) oxide (PbO) when 975 KJ of heat is liberated during the reaction 2PbS(s) + 3O2(g) → 2PbO(s) + 2SO2(g). The initial calculation by a participant indicates that 1.18 moles of PbS corresponds to 282 grams, based on the specific heat of 827.4 KJ. Participants debated whether the 975 KJ value should be interpreted as KJ or KJ/mol, ultimately concluding that it is KJ. The correct approach was affirmed, but concerns about potential mistakes in the calculation were raised.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of stoichiometry in chemical reactions
  • Knowledge of heat transfer in chemical processes
  • Familiarity with the concept of molar mass
  • Basic principles of thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of stoichiometry in chemical equations
  • Learn about heat transfer calculations in exothermic reactions
  • Explore the concept of molar mass and its applications in chemistry
  • Investigate thermodynamic principles related to enthalpy changes
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals involved in chemical engineering or materials science who are looking to deepen their understanding of heat calculations in chemical reactions.

cheechnchong
Messages
132
Reaction score
1
Problem: Galena (PbS) is heated in air to form lead (II) Oxide.

2PbS(s) + 3O2 (g) --- 2PbO (s) + 2SO2 (g)

What mass of galena is converted to lead oxide if 975 KJ of heat are liberated?

My Approach:

975 KJ x (1mol/827.4KJ) = 1.18 mol

1.18 mol PbS x (239.3g PbS/1mol PbS) = 282g PbS

My concern is whether the 975KJ is in fact 975 KJ/mol...if it is, then it's going to change the answer quite a bit! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well if in the problem you are given 975KJ i would assume that its just KJ not KJ/mol.
 
Stevedye56 said:
Well if in the problem you are given 975KJ i would assume that its just KJ not KJ/mol.

so you think my approach is correct?
 
Is the the specific heat 827.4KJ?
 
^^^yes it is...damn i forgot to put that on here oops
 
cheechnchong said:
^^^yes it is...damn i forgot to put that on here oops

Ok. It looks like the correct procedure assuming your multiplication is right. At first i thought it was q=smdeltaT but there was no temperature so i guess it couldn't be that.
 
Stevedye56 said:
Ok. It looks like the correct procedure assuming your multiplication is right. At first i thought it was q=smdeltaT but there was no temperature so i guess it couldn't be that.

hmmm, my TA marked it wrong...right now I am guessing whether we have to utilize the equation they provide? what do you think?
 
I think i found one of the mistakes. KJ/mol is not mol/KJ

975 KJ x (1mol/827.4KJ) = 1.18 mol
 
Stevedye56 said:
I think i found one of the mistakes. KJ/mol is not mol/KJ

975 KJ x (1mol/827.4KJ) = 1.18 mol

ummm i don't think it's wrong really...i actually think this is right? i think it's right because when you figure out the mol amount (this is an example) from .3g O2, you usually divide it by 32 g/mol right? that's what i thought when i approached this problem...let me know if I am wrong
 
  • #10
Hi,
I need help in answering this question...
Why would the scientific community resist the concept of a nucleus full of positive charges and what observation helped them explain adn accept this design?
Thanks,
v
 
  • #11
vfdismer001 said:
Hi,
I need help in answering this question...
Why would the scientific community resist the concept of a nucleus full of positive charges and what observation helped them explain adn accept this design?
Thanks,
v

Why are you posting this in another thread?
 
  • #12
vfdismer001 said:
Hi,
I need help in answering this question...
Why would the scientific community resist the concept of a nucleus full of positive charges and what observation helped them explain adn accept this design?
Thanks,
v

well i can only think of ways where the concept is applicable. The scientific community who resist the positive charge of the nucleus obviously haven't performed rutherford's gold foil experiment. The only way i can see them disagree is because of magnetic fields disregarding the nucleus--the layer of a magnet is what causes the (+) and (-), vice versa--probably their belief (but i think the nucleus has something to do with the magenetic reaction). I dunno, this answer is straight off guessing...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
24K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
63K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K