What is the RAM of carbon in a sample based on data from a mass spectrum?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the relative atomic mass (RAM) of carbon based on mass spectrum data. The absolute masses of the carbon isotopes 12C+ and 13C+ are provided, along with their relative abundances. The calculations show that the mass of one neutron is derived from the difference between the isotopes, while the RAM of 13C is calculated as 1.43 x 10^-1. The overall RAM of carbon in the sample is determined to be approximately 12.011. The thread emphasizes the importance of using relative abundance in these calculations.
123Sub-Zero
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
1.Some data obtained from the mass spectrum of a sample of carbon are given below.
Ion 12C+ 13C+
Absolute mass of one ion/g 1.993 x 10-23 2.158 x 10-23
Relative abundance/ % 98.9 1.1
Use the data to calculate the mass of one neutron, the RAM of 13C and the RAM of carbon in the sample.
You may neglect the mass of an electron.
Work out:
1.Mass of one neutron
2.RAM of 13C
3.RAM of carbon in the sample
I know how to work out the RAM form a mass spectrometer graph but cannot work this out. I presume you multiply the mass of one ion by relative abundance to (for the RAM questions) but then don't know the next step.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A_{r} of samples:\\<br /> ^{13}C:~~\frac{13 x 1.1}{100} = 1.43 x 10^{-1} = 0.143\\<br /> Carbon:~~\frac{(12 x 98.9)~+~(13 x 1.1)}{(98.9 + 1.1)} = 12.011 = 12
 
Last edited:
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