Find the Molar Mass of A: A + B + Energy = C | 35.5g A, 750kJ Heat Released

  • Thread starter Thread starter Speedking96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the molar mass of substance A in the reaction 2 A + 3 B + 1000 kJ ==> 4 C, using 35.5 g of A and 750 kJ of heat released. The heat released per mole of A is determined to be 500 kJ, leading to the conclusion that 1.5 moles of A were used based on the heat provided. The molar mass is calculated as 23.7 g/mol by dividing the mass of A by the number of moles. However, there is a concern regarding the clarity of the question, particularly whether the heat was sufficient to fully react all of A. This highlights the importance of precise wording in chemistry problems for accurate calculations.
Speedking96
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



2 A + 3 B + 1000 kJ ==> 4 C

where A,B,C are molecules. A mass of 35.5 g of A is used with the right quantity of B, and the mixture of reactants is heated with an energy of 750 kJ. Find the molar mass of A.

2. The attempt at a solution

Heat released per mole in terms of "A" : 1000 kJ / 2 = 500 kJ/mole "A"

Finding number of moles used:

(750 kJ) / (500 kJ/mole) = 1.5 mol "A"

Molar mass = (35.5 grams) / (1.5 mol) = 23.7 g/mol
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your approach looks OK, but the question is poorly worded - it doesn't say anything about whether there was enough heat to react all of A.
 
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