Error Analysis for Moles of Calcium Ions in 250mL

Thread starter xRadio
Start date Oct 10, 2008
Tags

Analysis Calcium Error Error analysis Ions Moles

AI Thread Summary

When calculating the moles of calcium ions in 250 mL, the initial value of 6.0 x 10^-4 mols must be multiplied by 25, resulting in 1.5 x 10^-2 mols. The error value of 0.5 x 10^-5 mols should also be scaled by the same factor of 25, leading to an adjusted error of 1.25 x 10^-4 mols. This means the final result for moles of calcium ions in 250 mL is 1.5 x 10^-2 ± 1.25 x 10^-4 mols. It is important to apply the same scaling to both the measurement and its associated error for accurate representation. Proper error analysis ensures reliability in the calculated concentration of calcium ions.

Oct 10, 2008

xRadio

Just a quick question about error analysis.

Moles of Calcium ions in 10 mL = 6.0 x 10-4 ± 0.5 x 10^-5 mols

I'm suppose to scale this number to Moles of Calcium ions in 250mL.
So when I multiply by 25, do I multiply the error value as well? Or does it remain the same?

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 11, 2008

Borek

Mentor

Number of moles does change, so error does as well.

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 »