Percent Composition and Finding Formula - Chemistry

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the formula of a sulfide formed from a reaction between sulfur and iron. Initially, 50.0g of sulfur is combined with 100.0g of iron, but 12.5g of iron remains unreacted after heating. The participants calculate the moles of each element, with iron yielding 1.79 moles and sulfur 1.56 moles. To find the ratio for the sulfide formula, the reacted mass of iron is calculated by subtracting the unreacted mass from the initial mass. The final step involves dividing the moles of each element to establish the simplest whole-number ratio for the formula.
Larrytsai
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
% Composition and Finding Formula - Chemistry

50.0g of Sulphur is mixed with 100.0g of iron and heated strongly. When the reaction is complete 12.5g of iron remains. What is the formula of the sulphide formed?

What i have done so far is i got the 2 mols of each element.

Fe=1.79
S=1.56

i divided biggest/smallest and i get 1.41
now i need to know how to put it in ratio form and what to do to find the formula for Sulphide
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it said 12.5g of Fe was unreacted!
 
Kushal said:
it said 12.5g of Fe was unreacted!

hmm so i should go 100-12.5 then find the mol then find the ratio?
 
yeah... this is it...

you divide the mass reacted by the respective atomic mass. then you find the ratio.
 
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