Chemistry Stoichiometry Question 29b: Calculating Moles and Mass for Mg + O2 Reaction

  • Thread starter Thread starter supernova1203
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homework
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the stoichiometric calculations for the reaction of magnesium and oxygen to form magnesium oxide. The balanced equation is established as 2Mg + O2 → 2MgO, leading to the calculation of moles for each reactant based on their given masses. The calculated moles indicate that magnesium is the limiting reactant, resulting in 0.1 moles of MgO produced. A slight discrepancy in mass between reactants and products is attributed to differences in molar mass values used from various sources. The conversation concludes that the question may contain errors or intentional variations, complicating the calculations.
supernova1203
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Question 29b)

I have the actual question in the attachment.

I go through the calculations as follows

Mg + O2 ---> MgO

then i balance equation

2Mg + O2----> 2 MgO

since we are given the mass of the magnesium and oxygen reactants, i prooced to finding the number of moles for magnesium and oxygen

for Mg
=2.6/24.3 (Molar mass)

=0.1 mols of Mg


now O2
=1.6/32(Molar mass)

= 0.05 mols

now that we have the number of moles of Mg and O2

i continue and find the limited and excess reactant(although i think both are limited, since there is only enough of Mg and O2 to do the reaction, so I use Mg in cross multiplication with MgO to find the number of MgO moles.

2 mols of Mg ----->2 mols of MgO
0.1 mole ---------> x

2/0.1=2/x

2x=0.2

x=0.1

so now we know the number of moles for MgO is 0.1

finally we calculate the mass of MgO

mass = number of moles x molar mass

molar mass of MgO is 24.3(mg) + 16(Oxygen)

24.3 + 16 = 40.3


mass = 0.1 x 40.3

=4.03 g

according to the law of conservation of mass, both sides reactant and product should be equal and in my calculations they are almost equal, the slight difference (4.2g) on reactants and 4.03g on products side is there because the course curriculum uses different decimal values for molar mass of each element and i use wikipedia (course says Oxygen has molar mass of 16, whereas wikipedia says its 15.9) the same goes for magnesium, book says a value and wikipedia has a slightly different value(again very slightly, which probably accounts for the slight difference in mass)

so the book and i are off by very little, does this check out?
 

Attachments

  • lesson 9 question 3.jpg
    lesson 9 question 3.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 842
Physics news on Phys.org
2.6g and 1.6g are off, if anything, 2.6g of Mg reacts with 1.7g of oxygen. The difference is too large to be explained just by the differences in molar masses.

That's problem with the question, not with your calculations; however - these values are faulty, so it is hard to tell what they expect you to do. Could be the idea is that you are to use these masses in calculations - note that up to d everything can be calculated using given numbers (even if they are incorrect). Only e will be difficult to solve.

Wikipedia doesn't say oxygen has a molar mass of 15.9, it says 15.9994 - which rounds up to 16.
 
hm so your saying that the question has typos in it? because that's been known to happen in this textbook
 
What I am saying is that it can be both a typo, or an intentional use of a slightly off value (similar to experimental error). Impossible to say.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Back
Top