Answer:
70mol
Explanation:
The equation of the reaction is given as:
2C₂H₂ + 5O₂ → 4CO₂ + 2H₂O
Given parameters:
Number of moles of acetylene = 35.0mol
Number of moles of oxygen in the tank = 84.0mol
Unknown:
Number of moles of CO₂ produced = 35.0mol
Solution:
From the information given about the reaction, we know that the reactant that limits this combustion process is acetylene. Oxygen is given in excess and we don't know the number of moles of this gas that was used up. We know for sure that all the moles of acetylene provided was used to furnish the burning procedure.
To determine the number of moles of CO₂ produced, we use the stoichiometric relationship between the known acetylene and the CO₂ produced from the balanced chemical equation:
From the equation:
2 moles of acetylene produced 4 moles of CO₂
∴ 35.0 mol of acetylene would produced:
= 70mol
Answer:
Le Chatelier's principle can be applied in explaining the results
Explanation:
According to Le Chatelier's principle, when a constraint such as a change in concentration in this case is imposed on a chemical system in equilibrium, the system will adjust itself in such a way as to annul the constraint imposed.
Hence, when the color of the solution was more like that of the control, the reaction would shift towards the left. Similarly, when the color was more like it was towards the reactant, the reaction would shift towards the right.
If we were to prepare calcium oxalate, we should prepare it in a base solution. This is because when the base was added to calcium oxalate, it did not form any precipitate but when an acid was added to the calcium oxalate, it formed a precipitate.
1 Its low gravitational influence.
2 Its extremely faint, compared to all the other objects out there.
3 Its Size
Answer:The process of science is iterative.
Science circles back on itself so that useful ideas are built upon and used to learn even more about the natural world. This often means that successive investigations of a topic lead back to the same question, but at deeper and deeper levels. Let's begin with the basic question of how biological inheritance works. In the mid-1800s, Gregor Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate — that information is passed along in discrete packets that cannot be diluted. In the early 1900s, Walter Sutton and Theodor Boveri (among others) helped show that those particles of inheritance, today known as genes, were located on chromosomes. Experiments by Frederick Griffith, Oswald Avery, and many others soon elaborated on this understanding by showing that it was the DNA in chromosomes which carries genetic information. And then in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick, again aided by the work of many others, provided an even more detailed understanding of inheritance by outlining the molecular structure of DNA. Still later in the 1960s, Marshall Nirenberg, Heinrich Matthaei, and others built upon this work to unravel the molecular code that allows DNA to encode proteins. And it doesn't stop there. Biologists have continued to deepen and extend our understanding of genes, how they are controlled, how patterns of control themselves are inherited, and how they produce the physical traits that pass from generation to generation. The process of science is not predetermined.
Any point in the process leads to many possible next steps, and where that next step leads could be a surprise. For example, instead of leading to a conclusion about tectonic movement, testing an idea about plate tectonics could lead to an observation of an unexpected rock layer. And that rock layer could trigger an interest in marine extinctions, which could spark a question about the dinosaur extinction — which might take the investigator off in an entirely new direction. At first this process might seem overwhelming. Even within the scope of a single investigation, science may involve many different people engaged in all sorts of different activities in different orders and at different points in time — it is simply much more dynamic, flexible, unpredictable, and rich than many textbooks represent it as. But don't panic! The scientific process may be complex, but the details are less important than the big picture …
