Chemistry Calculating Moles of O2 Gas at Pressure & Volume

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the number of moles of O2 gas using the ideal gas equation under specific conditions: a pressure of 760 cm Hg, a volume of 24.63 L, and a temperature of 27 degrees Celsius. Participants clarify that this question is practical and can be calculated rather than purely theoretical. The ideal gas equation is emphasized as a reliable method for determining gas quantities based on given parameters. There is some confusion among participants about the nature of the question, but the consensus is that it involves applying gas laws. Understanding and applying the ideal gas law is essential for solving such problems.
intellpuneet
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



what is the number of moles of o2 gas at a pressure of 760 cm of hg in a container of volume 24.63 l at 27 degree c?
i read its answer... now i want to ask is this question theoratical or can be calculated ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


intellpuneet said:
Is this theoratical question or application ?

Please elaborate, no idea what you are asking about.
 


Borek said:
Please elaborate, no idea what you are asking about.
Done editing
 


I have still not a slightest idea what you are asking about. For sure volume can be easily calculated from these data, using ideal gas equation which is part of ideal gas theory.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top