Chemistry - Stoichiometry - Some limiting reactants

AI Thread Summary
In the stoichiometry discussion, a user calculated the production of ammonia and the nitrogen required for the reaction N2 + 3H2 -> 2NH3, determining that 112.5 grams of ammonia are produced from 20.0 grams of hydrogen. However, they questioned their calculation for the nitrogen, suspecting an error since the total mass did not add up correctly. The response clarified that the molar mass of nitrogen (N2) was incorrectly calculated and should be around 28 grams. Additionally, formatting tips for text and LaTeX usage were provided for clearer communication. Attention to detail in calculations is emphasized as a common challenge in stoichiometry.
uchihajeff
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Did I answer these questions correctly?

5. In the reaction N2 + 3H2 -> 2NH3, if 20.0g of hydrogen reacts:
...a. How many grams of ammonia are produced?

...20.0g H2...|1 mol H2..|2 mol NH3.|...17.04g NH3
......|2.02g H2.| 3 mol H2..|...1 mol NH3
112.5 grams of ammonia are produced.

...b. How many grams of nitrogen react?

...20.0g H2 ...|1 mol H2..|1 mol N2.| 14.01g N2
......|2.02g H2.| 3 mol H2| 1 mol N2
46.2g of nitrogen react.

I think I did something wrong in part b. 20g +46.2g doesn't make 112.5g

btw, is there an easier way to format text (spaces) and how does (I think) latex work?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your method is correct in both parts.

Your only error (in part b) is with the molar mass of N2, which should be around 28. You forgot to double the atomic mass !
 
The only wat to format spaces is by enclosing the text within
Code:
 [/code ] tags.

For [itex]\LaTeX[/itex] see : [url]https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=9021[/url]
 
Thanks a lot for your help with the problem and my other questions.


It's always those little errors that get me...
 
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