Is my electronic textbook incorrect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a potential error in an electronic textbook regarding the calculation of percentage yield in chemistry. Participants agree that multiplying by 100% is necessary to express a fraction as a percentage, while simply multiplying by 100 does not yield the correct percentage. There is confusion over the notation used in the textbook, with some arguing that it should have used 100 instead of 100%. The conversation highlights the importance of clarity in educational materials, especially in scientific contexts. Overall, the consensus is that the textbook's notation may lead to misunderstanding, but the calculations themselves are sound.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1
Is it just me, but if you multiply anything by 100% you'll end up with the same number?

I believe the authors meant to write 100, not 100%.

This is from 5 steps to a 5 AP Chem.
[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/icDcjc.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Qube said:
Is it just me, but if you multiply anything by 100% you'll end up with the same number?

I believe the authors meant to write 100, not 100%.

Welcome Qube to PF Forums!

Yes you are correct. The fraction will always be less than 1 because actual yield will never exceed theoretical yield. If it does, this is good chance an error was made either in the experiment or calculations. So to express as a percentage you multiply by 100 (not 100%). Textbooks can have errors in them, they are usually fixed by the 2nd or 3rd printing.
 
Now that I think about it, I believe I am in error.

Suppose the actual yield was 50g, and the theoretical yield was 100g.

50% = (50/100) * 100%

50% = .5 * 1

50% = .5

I still wonder why they left the 100% in though ...

And multiplying .5 by 100 as I proposed would yield 50. 50 does not equal 50%, but the left side of the equation clearly states "% yield."

[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/icDcjc.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Qube,

The textbook looks fine to me.

Think of the percent sign as a unit. If I want to convert .5 to percent, multiplying by 100 will only give me 50, which only means that I multiplied .5 by 100. If you want to convert .5 to a percentage, multiply .5 by 100% and you'll get 50% which is the desired result.

Qube said:
And multiplying .5 by 100 as I proposed would yield 50. 50 does not equal 50%, but the left side of the equation clearly states "% yield."

Exactly what I'm thinking. The left side of the equation says % yield, which means you'll need a percentage sign on the right side.
 
gb7nash said:
If I want to convert .5 to percent, multiplying by 100 will only give me 50,
Actually you get 50% because it is given you are calculating % yield.

I have seen both notations, multiplying by "100" and "100%." but I find the later
to be ambiguous. A valid interpretation (as qube noted) 100% = 1, but multiplying
by one does not give you the correct answer as a percentage.
 
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