Why Did the Melting Point Decrease After Re-Solidification?

AI Thread Summary
The melting point of a compound can decrease after re-solidification due to the presence of impurities or changes in the crystal structure. Melting point depression often occurs when impurities disrupt the crystal lattice, leading to a lower melting point. If the sample was allowed to cool slowly, it may have formed a different crystalline structure or incorporated impurities from the environment. The discussion also references the behavior of sucrose upon heating and introduces the concept of polymorphism, which can affect melting points. Understanding these factors is crucial for explaining the observed discrepancy in melting points.
twitsedgirl
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



An unknown compound gave a melting point of 230C. When the molten liquid solidified the melting point was determined to be 131C. Give a possible explanation for this discrepancy.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I understand that melting point depression arises from impurities within the lattice of the crystallized sample. But, I cannot seem to find why re-melting a "used" MP sample would lead to a MP depression. Most likely the sample was not cooled quickly, but slowly sitting at room temperature, which should allow the crystal lattice to recombine without any impurities within the capillary tube. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you ever seen what happens to sucrose when it is heated to melting?
 
Have you heard of polymorphism?
 
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

Back
Top