What exactly is heat of combustion? How would I calculate it?

AI Thread Summary
Heat of combustion refers to the energy released when a substance is burned in oxygen, typically measured per mole. To calculate the heat of combustion for butane using the provided data, one must first determine the heat absorbed by the water (q) using its mass and temperature change. The equation for the combustion of butane is given, but the calculation must be adjusted to reflect the amount of butane burned, converting grams to moles. The confusion arises from the distinction between calculating q and determining the heat of combustion per mole. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately performing the calculation.
black_hole
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
1. Calculate heat of combustion for butane. Given:

mass water- 129.91g
mass butane 0.15g
old temp- 16.4 degrees C
new temp.- 26.7 degrees C

2. Homework Equations

2C4H10 + 3O2 yields 8CO2 + 10H2O

3. The Attempt at a Solution

I've tried, but I really have no idea. I only know how to calculate q and apparently that's not the same.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Heat of combustion is per mole, what you have calculated is for 0.15g...
 
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