Chemistry How to Calculate Equivalent Gas Volumes Using Avogadro's Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boozehound22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gases Molecules
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the equivalent gas volumes using Avogadro's Law, the ideal gas law equation PV = nRT is essential. The problem involves finding the volume of CH4 at 0°C and 1.00 atm that equals the number of molecules in 0.58 L of N2 at 35.0 °C and 1.50 atm. A common mistake is miscalculating the number of moles when applying the equation. It's important to focus on the ratio of the two gases rather than needing a specific value for the gas constant R. Understanding these principles will lead to the correct solution.
Boozehound22
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


What volume of CH4 at 0°C and 1.00 atm contains the same number of molecules as 0.58 L of N2 measured at 35.0 °C and 1.50 atm?


Homework Equations


I think you just need to use Avogadro's Number and multiply by the molar mass?
I guess my question is what equation would you use?

The Attempt at a Solution


I haven't attempted the question due to lack of an equation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are probably looking for PV = nRT
 
thank you. i was trying that formula but was plugging in the wrong number for moles.
 
Remember you are doing the ratio of two of these, so you don't actualy need a value for R
 
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