Find Missing Coefficients: Al2SO4 + KOH --> AlOH3 + K2SO4

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProblemSets
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balancing equations
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the missing coefficients for the chemical equation Al2(SO4)3 + KOH → Al(OH)3 + K2SO4. The correct coefficients are identified as 1, 6, 2, and 3, which correspond to the reactants and products. A key point is the importance of keeping sulfate (SO4) and hydroxide (OH) groups together for accurate counting. The balancing of metal ions also plays a crucial role in determining the coefficients. Understanding these principles aids in correctly balancing the chemical equation.
ProblemSets
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
What are the missing coefficients for the equation below?

Al2(SO4)3 + KOH ---> Al(OH)3 + K2SO4



a.) 1,6,2,3
b.) 2,12,4,6
c.) 1,3,2,3
d.) 4,6,2,3


I think my problem is whether or not to keep the SO4 together, or break it apart to sulfur and oxygen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
answer is A. i figured it out.
 
For counting purposes, keep the OH and SO4 together. Then look at the coefficients of the metal ions to help you balance the equation.
 
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