How Does Raoult's Law Apply to Calculating Vapor Pressure in Solutions?

AI Thread Summary
Raoult's Law states that the vapor pressure of a solution is equal to the mole fraction of the solvent multiplied by the vapor pressure of the pure solvent, assuming non-volatile solutes. The discussion centers on a homework problem where the user compares their solution with the professor's. It is noted that the professor incorrectly used the mole fraction of the solute instead of the solvent, leading to an error in the calculation. The consensus is that the user's approach aligns correctly with Raoult's Law. Accurate application of Raoult's Law is crucial for determining vapor pressure in solutions.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



http://i.minus.com/juL6gvGzvWdm.png

Homework Equations



Raoult's law: Pressure of solution = Mole fraction of solvent multiplied by vapor pressure of pure solvent. We're assuming non-volatile solutes.

The Attempt at a Solution



My solution:

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/v/556873_10201073170213135_1235629214_n.jpg?oh=a01e718c3f2218dc3d130fd0007be82b&oe=528964FD

Prof's solution:

http://i.minus.com/jbtmawYMvRpDpX.png

Who's right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with your answer.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Yeah, it seems as if he used the mole fraction of the solute instead of the mole fraction of the solvent, which is a major boo-boo.
 
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...
Back
Top