Titration Calculation of Unknown Solution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the moles of an unknown substance after titrating it with a 0.1M Sodium Hydroxide solution. The user used 17 cm³ of Hydrochloric Acid to neutralize the NaOH and is confused about the titration equations. They recall a mnemonic triangle for the relationship between moles, concentration, and volume but find it unhelpful for solving the problem. A suggestion is made to refer to a specific website for clearer explanations on titration calculations. Understanding the correct equations is essential for accurately determining the moles of the unknown substance.
xkieth
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I titrated an unknown sample with a Sodium Hydroxide 250cm3 with 0.1M Concentration. I titrate and used up 17 cm3 using a Hydrochloric Acid to neutralise the NaOH. I have to find out the Mole of the unknown substance

Homework Equations



I forgot the equations of titration, all I can find on the internet I can't understand them.. >.<

The Attempt at a Solution



I used the 0.1 mol dm-3 NaOH and got 19.3cm3 HCl , that would be equal to 0.83 M,
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
i find the easiest way of remembering the equation is to think of a triangle:
mol
concentration * volume

so mol = concentration * volume
concentration = mol/volume
volume = mol/concentration
 
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