Chemistry Why Is ln(N) Around 50 for Various Chemical Compositions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yuriick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on estimating the number of molecules (N) in a few grams of matter and explaining why ln(N) is approximately 50 across different chemical compositions. The equation M = m/N relates molecular mass (M) to the mass of the sample (m) and the number of molecules (N). Participants express confusion about the question and the calculations involved, particularly regarding the average molar mass of compounds with varying atomic compositions. The inquiry includes considerations of both the lightest and heaviest possible compounds made of a few atoms. Understanding these concepts is crucial for solving the problem effectively.
Yuriick
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Estimate the number N of molecules in a few grams of matter. Explain why in that case ln (N) is of the order of 50 whatever the chemical composition.

Homework Equations



M = m/N

where M is the molecular mass

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm really unsure about the entire question. I have no idea what he's asking, but I might be over thinking it. I don't even know where to start.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the average molar mass of a typical compound made of just a few atoms?

Say - 4 atoms. What is the molar mass of the lightest possible compound? Of the heaviest one?
 
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