How to Calculate Heat Lost or Gained in a Reaction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HelloMotto
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat Lost
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the heat gained or lost in the reaction between potassium hydroxide and hydrobromic acid, the heat capacity and density of the solution are essential. The temperature change from 20.1°C to 24.5°C indicates a heat transfer that can be quantified using the formula Q = mcΔT, where Q is heat, m is mass, c is specific heat capacity, and ΔT is the temperature change. Since the total volume of the solution is 41 mL, it can be converted to mass using the density of the solution. Understanding the relationship between heat, temperature change, volume, and heat capacity is crucial for solving the problem effectively.
HelloMotto
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
0.100 mol/L + 23 ml of Potassium Hydroxide is mixed with 18 ml of hydrobromic acid. Calculate the heat gained or lost by the reaction.

The initial temperature was 20.1 celcius and the final was 24.5 celcius.

i have no clue how to solve this equation. Can someone give me clues and what equation to use?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only important information you have is that 41 mL of solution is heated from 20.1 C to 24.5 C. You need the heat capacity and density of that solution (either given or make an assumption) to complete the calculation.

Do you know of a relationship between heat and temperature change, volume (mass?) and heat capacity?
 
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