How to Solve the Second Problem in Solution Stoichiometry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stoichiometry
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a stoichiometry problem involving HNO3 and Na2CO3. The user successfully calculated the volume of KCl needed for the first part of the assignment but struggles with the second part, specifically identifying the limiting reactant. Clarification is provided that there is no limiting reagent in this problem, which simplifies the approach. The user seeks guidance on how to proceed with the calculations for the second question. Understanding the absence of a limiting reactant is crucial for solving the problem effectively.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


The description of the problem is in the given link: http://s906.photobucket.com/albums/ac261/Bashyboy/?action=view&current=2011-10-11_21-13-53_241.jpg


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Well, I as was able to find the answer to the first problem, which came out to be 51.4 mL of KCl. What I was not able to ascertain was the answer to the second problem. I took the amount of moles contained in the HNO3 and Na2CO3 solutions; I then tried to find the limiting reactant, but I really didn't work. How do I find the answer to the second question. Sorry if any parts of my query are unclear--it is late, and, therefore, I am tired.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no limiting reagent in this question.
 
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