How Much SiCl4 Results from 2.8g of Silicon with 50% Yield?

  • Thread starter Thread starter a.a
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the amount of SiCl4 produced from 2.8 g of silicon with a 50% yield. The stoichiometric conversion indicates that 2.8 g of silicon theoretically produces 8.468 g of SiCl4. However, the yield percentage must be applied to this theoretical amount, resulting in a final production of 4.234 g of SiCl4 due to the 50% yield. Participants confirm that the initial calculations are correct, but emphasize the importance of applying the yield at the end of the calculation. Accurate application of stoichiometry and yield percentage is crucial for determining the correct amount of product formed.
a.a
Messages
126
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The direct reaction of silicon with Cl_2 the yield of SiCl4 is 50%. How many grams of SiCl4 are obtained in the reaction of 2.8 g of silicon with excess chlorine?


Homework Equations


Si= 28.0855g
SiCl4= 169.8963g
Si + 2Cl2 --> SiCl4


The Attempt at a Solution


2.8g Si = (84.94815 g SiCl4/28.0855 g Si)* 2.8g Si
= 8.468 g SiCl4
= 8.5 SiCl4

Could someone please let me know if I made any mistakes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a.a said:
2.8g Si = (84.94815 g SiCl4/28.0855 g Si)* 2.8g Si = 8.468 g SiCl4

This is obviously wrong - perhaps just what you wrote is wrong, as the final number looks OK. But for sure 2.8 g Si doesn't equal 8.468 g SiCl4.

However - where is the yield percentage used? Have you forgot?
 
sorri, the way i wrote is is wrong, i ment to say that 2.8 Si produces 8.468 g SiCl_4
i used the percentage yeild in that i said 84.94815 g SiCl4 rather than 169.8963g
 
Use precentage as the last step, after you calculate correct stoichiometric amount. Numbers look OK.
 
do we still arive at the same answer though?
 
Yes. That's why I wrote that numbers look OK.
 
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