Can Flame Tests Identify Individual Metals in Mixtures?

Thread starter kant101
Start date Oct 17, 2006
Tags

Chemistry Lab

AI Thread Summary

Flame tests can indicate the presence of certain metals based on the color they emit when heated, but they are not reliable for identifying individual metals in mixtures. This is because the colors produced by different metals can overlap, making it difficult to distinguish between them. Additionally, the intensity of the flame color can be affected by the concentration of each metal in the mixture, further complicating identification. Therefore, while flame tests can provide some information, they are not definitive for mixed samples. Accurate identification of metals in mixtures typically requires more advanced analytical techniques.

Oct 17, 2006

kant101

Here's a question that came on my lab of which I know the answer but not the reason :cry:

Q. Is it possible to use the flame tests to identify each individual metal in any mixture? Explain

I think the answer is no but what's the real reason?

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 17, 2006

Stevedye56

Explain your answer and then you'll get help

Oct 17, 2006

kant101

I seriously have no clue on this. I just guessed the answer

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »