Chemistry Solving pH 0: 2 Moles of H3O+ per 100 Moles of Water

Thread starter Bridget
Start date Sep 8, 2008
Tags

Ions Moles

AI Thread Summary

pH 0 indicates a highly acidic solution, corresponding to approximately 2 moles of H3O+ ions per 100 moles of water. This translates to a concentration of H+ ions that significantly impacts the solution's acidity. In a 1-liter solution, there are about 55.5 moles of water, which helps clarify the relationship between moles of H3O+ and water. Understanding this ratio is crucial for grasping the implications of such low pH levels. The discussion highlights the importance of recognizing the moles of water when calculating pH and H+ concentrations.

Sep 8, 2008

Bridget

Hi,

I came across this statement and an explanation to this is greatly appreciated as I can't figure this out.

"pH 0 means ~ 2 moles of H₃O⁺ for each 100 moles water"

?

Thank you.

Physics news on Phys.org

Sep 8, 2008

Borek

Mentor

pH 0 - how many moles of H⁺ per liter of solution?

1 liter of solution - how many moles of water?

Sep 8, 2008

Bridget

Oops!

Got it!

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »