Chemistry Can I Convert Moles Between Products?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rakeru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convert Moles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around converting moles of product C from moles of product D using the reaction equation 2 A + B → 2 C + 3 D. The user confirms that it is possible to convert between C and D by applying stoichiometric ratios derived from the balanced equation. The calculation provided shows that starting with 0.320 mol of D results in 0.213 mol of C produced. There is a suggestion to clarify the wording of the original problem for better understanding. Overall, the conversion between moles of different products in a chemical reaction is confirmed as valid.
rakeru
Messages
75
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi! I was assigned a problem for chemistry like this:

2 A + B → 2 C + 3 D

It asks to find mol of C if you start with 0.320 mol D..

Can I convert between C and D? I know that I can convert between A and B.. but I'm not sure about C and D.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



If I can do that, then it's:

(0.320 mol D)(2 mol C/3 mol D)= 0.213 mol C
??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your calculations are correct, but I don't like wording of the problem. It should be more like "how much C is produced together with 0.320 moles of D, if the reaction equation is..."
 
Oh, so its possible. :D Thanks! Sorry if I worded it weirdly.. I can't remember the exact words from the problem..
 
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

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
11K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top