Investigating Combustion of Hydrogen & Boron Compound

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a chemistry problem involving the combustion of a hydrogen and boron compound. Participants are tasked with determining the empirical and chemical formulas of the substance, calculating its molar mass, and finding the mass of B2O3 produced during combustion. Given the mass of the sample and the resulting water, users are expected to show their calculations and attempts to solve the problem to receive assistance. The conversation emphasizes the importance of demonstrating work for effective help. Overall, the focus is on applying stoichiometric principles to analyze the combustion reaction.
Gil-H
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A sample of gaseous substance composed of only hydrogen and boron,
underwent combustion with excess oxygen.
As a result, all the hydrogen turned into water, and all the boron turned into B2O3.
a) find the empirical formula of the substance?
b) find the chemical formula of the substance?
c) what is the molar mass of the substance?
d) what is the mass of the B2O3 that was formed?

Homework Equations


substance mass: 0.596 gr
substance volume: 0.484 L
temperature: 273 K
pressure: 1 atm
mass of water: 1.17 gr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to show your attempts to receive help. This is a forum policy.
 
Problem solved.
And thank you for the remark.
I'll keep that in mind.
 
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