Chemistry Problem involving specific heat capacity and energy change

AI Thread Summary
To solve the chemistry problem, first calculate the energy required to heat the water from 28.7 to 45.6 degrees Celsius using the specific heat capacity of water. This energy (q) will equal the energy lost by the gold cube as it cools down. Once the mass of the gold is determined using its specific heat capacity, the volume can be calculated using the density of gold. The key is understanding the energy transfer between the gold and water to find the mass, which then leads to the volume calculation. This approach effectively connects the concepts of specific heat capacity and density in the context of thermal energy changes.
maceng7
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A cube of gold is heated to a temperature of 94.2 degrees celsius, and then submerged in 31.3 mL of water at an initial temperature of 28.7 degrees celsius. If the final temperature of the water is 45.6 degrees celsius, calculate the volume of the cube of gold (s=0.130, density = 19.3 g/mL)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I don't really know where to start however, what if I found how much energy is required to heat water from 28.7 to 45.6 degrees celsius and then used that amount (q) to find the mass of gold using the specific heat capacity of gold? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where is the problem with finding volume of the cube once you know its mass and the gold density?
 
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