Calculating Square Meters of Gold Leaf from 28.35g of Gold

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZackDT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold Square
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the square meters of gold leaf from 28.35 grams of gold, first determine the volume using the formula Volume = Mass/Density, with gold's density available from resources like WebElements. The thickness of the gold leaf is given as 1.27x10^-5 cm, which will be crucial for calculating the area once the volume is known. After finding the volume, divide it by the thickness to obtain the area in square centimeters, then convert that to square meters. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using the correct subforum for academic questions. Accurate calculations will yield the total area of gold leaf possible from the specified mass.
ZackDT
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi. First time asking question here so sorry if format is wrong.

Question:

Gold leaf, which is used for many decorative purposes is made by hammering pure gold into very thin sheets. Assuming that a sheet of gold leaf is 1.27x10^-5 cm thick, how many square meters of gold leaf could be obtained from 28.35 g of gold.


I know Density equals M/V and Volume equals M/D

I've devised that 28.35 is the mass, but I don't know what the volume is, or what I'm even trying to find (Volume or Density? I'm guessing volume)

All help welcome. Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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