Chemistry How Do You Calculate Moles in 3.00 g H2SO4?

Thread starter G3NEl21C
Start date Jun 2, 2008
Tags

Moles

AI Thread Summary

To calculate the number of moles in 3.00 g of H2SO4, first determine the molecular mass of sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which is approximately 98.08 g/mol. Next, use the formula: moles = mass (g) / molecular mass (g/mol). By dividing 3.00 g by 98.08 g/mol, the result is approximately 0.0306 moles of H2SO4. This process outlines the steps needed to find the number of moles from a given mass. Understanding these calculations is essential for accurate chemical analysis.

Jun 2, 2008

G3NEl21C

1. How many moles in 3.00 g H2SO4?

Ok first off I don't know to find this answer. I want to know how to find it not just being told the answer. Second I'm going to need to know how to calculate this from beginning to end please help?

Physics news on Phys.org

Jun 2, 2008

Redbelly98

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Insights Author

The first step is to figure out the molecular mass of H2SO4.

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 »