Molar Heat of Fusion experiment question?

AI Thread Summary
The experiment involves adding heat to one mole of an unknown solid at its melting point, with a constant heat rate of 13.1 J/s over 2.33 minutes, resulting in a total heat of 1831.38 J. To find the molar heat of fusion, this value is converted to kJ/mol, yielding approximately 1.83 kJ/mol. The discussion also questions whether this value matches the molar heat of fusion for water, which is about 6.01 kJ/mol. The conclusion drawn is that the unknown solid is not water, as the calculated molar heat of fusion is significantly lower than that of water. Understanding these calculations is essential for identifying the properties of the unknown substance.
holidaylizard
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Molar Heat of Fusion experiment question?

Homework Statement



In one experiment heat was added to one mole of an unknown solid, at its normal melting point, at a constant rate of 13.1 J/s. If it took 2.33 minutes to melt all of the solid, what was the molor heat of fusion (in kJ/mol) of the unknown? Was the unknown water? Explain.


2. The attempt at a solution

13.1 J/s x (2.33 min x 60 sec) = 1831.38 J
 
Physics news on Phys.org


That's amount of heat, what is molar heat of fusion?

What is molar heat of fusion for water?

Are these identical?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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