Is There Missing Information in the Ksp Equilibria AgCl Data?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential missing information in the Ksp equilibria data for AgCl, specifically the volume of the initial solution. Participants agree that without this volume, calculations regarding the halogen ions' concentration are incomplete. One user suggests that assuming no change in volume might have been intended, while another points out that their calculations led to a different answer, indicating confusion over the steps. The conversation highlights that if the initial volume is excessively large, such as 2.4 million liters, no precipitate would form at all. Overall, the consensus is that the problem lacks critical information necessary for accurate resolution.
yolo123
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Please look at attached picture.

So, I tried solving it. Apparently, the answer is C. But, I think there is missing information (ie the volume of the initial solution). Care to back me up on this?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 7.34.19 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 7.34.19 PM.png
    8.3 KB · Views: 504
Physics news on Phys.org
yolo123 said:
Please look at attached picture.

So, I tried solving it. Apparently, the answer is C. But, I think there is missing information (ie the volume of the initial solution). Care to back me up on this?
I back you up. Without knowing the volume of the solution, you could have these halogen ions dissolved in an ocean of solvent.

Chet
 
Maybe they meant to assume no change in volume.
 
Yellowflash: I tried it, but it gave me B) as an answer (2.58 g more precisely). I'm not sure I did all the steps correctly though.
 
It is intended to be a limiting reagent question, with Ksp values given only to help in determining the order of precipitation. But yes, it is incomplete. If the initial volume is 2.4x106 L there will be no precipitate at all. We are not talking about some absurd volumes, 2.4x106 L is almost exactly olympic-size pool.
 
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