Finding valencies from a given element in 3 oxides

  • Thread starter Thread starter xiphoid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element
AI Thread Summary
To determine the valencies of an element in three oxides with given oxygen percentages, the molecular masses of the oxides were calculated as 58.6, 37.3, and 30.22. The molecular mass of oxygen is established as 16, which aids in deriving the molecular masses of the other element in each oxide. The relationship between molecular mass and valency needs clarification, as valency can be inferred from the ratio of the element's mass to the total mass of the oxide. Further calculations are necessary to establish this relationship and derive the valencies. The discussion emphasizes the importance of showing calculations to progress in finding the valencies.
xiphoid
Messages
57
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The oxides of a certain element contain 27.28%, 42.86% and 52.94% oxygen. What is the ratio of valencies of the element in the 3 oxides?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Following calculations were made:
Molecular mass of the first oxide is 58.6, second oxide is 37.3 and that of the third is 30.22

Do specify if the above calculations are also right or wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So you have found the molecular masses of the oxide. Good.

Now use the fact that molecular mass of Oxygen atom is 16. What possibilities does it leave for the molecular mass of the other element?

Show some approximate calculations, and we'll proceed further!
 
I used the molecular mass of O as 16 to derieve the molecular masses of each element, where I have confusion is that after finding the molecular masses of the oxides, how can I find the valencies, means, how is the molecular mass related with valency?

dharavsolanki said:
So you have found the molecular masses of the oxide. Good.

Now use the fact that molecular mass of Oxygen atom is 16. What possibilities does it leave for the molecular mass of the other element?

Show some approximate calculations, and we'll proceed further!
 
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...
Back
Top