Chemistry Calculating Moles of Chlorine Atoms in 71g of MCl2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sace Ver
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Moles
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the moles of chlorine atoms in 71g of MCl2, first determine the number of moles of MCl2 using its molar mass of 70.9 g/mol, which results in approximately 1.00 mol of MCl2. Since each molecule of MCl2 contains two chlorine atoms, the total moles of chlorine atoms is double that amount, yielding 2.00 moles of chlorine. The atomic weight of chlorine is approximately 35.5 g/mol, which supports the calculations. Thus, the final answer is 2.00 moles of chlorine atoms in 71g of MCl2.
Sace Ver
Messages
79
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


How many moles of chlorine atoms are there in 71g?

Given:
mCl2=71g
nCl2=1.00 mol
MCl2=70.9g/mol

Homework Equations



?

3. The Attempt at a Solution


Not sure how to go about this question.

Would it just be n multiplied by 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sace Ver said:

Homework Statement


How many moles of chlorine atoms are there in 71g?

Given:
mCl2=71g
nCl2=1.00 mol
MCl2=70.9g/mol

Homework Equations



?

3. The Attempt at a Solution


Not sure how to go about this question.

Would it just be n multiplied by 2?
Yes. The question asks for how many moles of chlorine atoms there are in 71 g. The atomic weight of one chlorine atom is approx. 35.5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine
 
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