Chemistry How many molecules of H2O in 100kg of snow? dont know where the density comes in

  • Thread starter Thread starter boom baby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Molecules
AI Thread Summary
To find the number of H2O molecules in 100kg of snow, the relevant calculations involve the molecular mass of water and Avogadro's number. One mole of H2O, which weighs 18g, contains approximately 6.023x10^23 molecules. Therefore, 100kg (or 100,000g) of H2O equates to about 3.346x10^27 molecules. The density of snow, given as 800 kg/m3, is not necessary for this calculation and may cause confusion. The focus remains on the mass and molecular weight of water for determining the total number of molecules.
boom baby
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How many molecules of H2O in 100kg of snow?? don't know where the density comes in!

Homework Statement



How many molecules of H2O are there in 100kg of snow? Density of snow is given as 800 kg/m3

Homework Equations



1 mole = 6.023x10^23 molecules
mass/molecular mass = number of moles


The Attempt at a Solution



This is my attempt, ignoring the density.

1 mole of H2O = 6.023x10^23 molecules of H2O

Hence 18g H2O contains 6x10^23 molecules
1g = 3.346x10^22 molecules
100,000g (100kg) = 3.346x10^27 molecules of H2O

Where/how does the density come into it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Your solution is correct. You don't need the density to solve the problem, so it's there to confuse you.
 


Excellent. Thanks man
 
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