Nuclear charge from a potential electrostatic energy

AI Thread Summary
To determine the nuclear charge from an electrostatic potential energy of -6.16x10^-18 J and a distance of 1.12x10^-10 m, the equation PE = [K*Q1*Q2]/d is used, where K is a constant and Q1 is the charge of an electron. The calculation yields Q2 as -4.79x10^-19 C, leading to confusion about whether this represents the nuclear charge. The negative value aligns with the negative potential energy and the positive charge of the electron. Additionally, there is a separate inquiry regarding the molar mass of Mo(CO)6, which is confirmed to be 264.0, although discrepancies in significant figures may have led to a previous incorrect marking.
RJLiberator
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
63
Question: "Given an electrostatic potential energy of -6.16x10^-18 J and a distance of 1.12x10^-10m, what is the nuclear charge if there is a single electron interacting with the nucleus?"

Okay, Equation:
PE = [K*Q1*Q2]/d

Where K is a constant of 8.99*10^9 J*m/c
d is giving at 1.12*10^-10m
PE is giving at -6.16*10^-18 J
Q1 is giving as the charge of an electron at 1.602 * 10^-19 C
Q2 is what we solve for, which, plugging in the equation is -4.79*10^-19

This equation is easy enough to plug in. HOWEVER, am I answering the equation? Is Q2 = to the nuclear charge? I guess that is where I am confused.

And for Q2 I received a negative charge, I would imagine this is correct since PE is initially negative and the charge of an electron was positive? Or do I have it backwards?

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I just realized I may have posted this with the worst possible title of a thread. I apologize.

Can anyone confirm that the MOLAR MASS of Mo(CO)6 is 264.0 ?
 
RJLiberator said:
I just realized I may have posted this with the worst possible title of a thread. I apologize.

Can anyone confirm that the MOLAR MASS of Mo(CO)6 is 264.0 ?

Yep, looks OK.
 
Interesting. I got that answer marked wrong on the online application. It must be due to the amount of figures, however the question explicitly states to go to one decimal point on all of these questions. I will e-mail my professor before going through my second attempt.

Anyone have any idea on the first one? I got it marked incorrectly and I am not sure if its because of the sign, significant figures or error in calculation.
 
Sorry for posting all of my junk here. However, I am having the most difficulty with this homework. I want to understand, but I feel like I am missing an integral piece. Anyway, I will keep treading on. Here is my next question.

"For the reaction between Iron and sulfuric acid, which element is reduced?" And which is oxidized?
a) Iron
b) Hydrogen
c) Sulfur

Okay. Well, the equation should be

2Fe (s) + 3H2SO4 (aq) ---> Fe2(SO4)3 (aq) + 3H2 (g)

Oxidization refers to loss of electrons in the reaction. Reduction is the gain of electrons.

Well naturally, Iron will look to loss electrons. So that would make it the obvious choice to be oxidized.
However, who gains electrons? My initial guess is "Sulfate." However, that is not an option. I attempted with oxygen previously and it was incorrect. So it must be Sulfur?
 
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