The oxidation number sulfur in H₂S is -2.
A compound's total number of oxidations must be zero.
The two hydrogen atoms in the chemical hydrogen sulfide, H₂S, each have an oxidation number of +1, making a total of +2. As a result, the compound's sulfur has an oxidation number of -2, and the total number of oxidations is 0.
Assume that the sulfur atom in H₂S has an oxidation number of x.
S be x.
Now,
2+x=0
⇒x=−2
<h3>What is oxidation number?</h3>
The total number of electrons that an atom either receives or loses in order to create a chemical connection with another atom is known as the oxidation number, also known as the oxidation state.
Depending on whether we are taking into account the electronegativity of the atoms or not, these phrases can occasionally have a distinct meaning. Coordination chemistry commonly makes use of the phrase "oxidation number."
<h3>What distinguishes an oxidation number from an oxidation state?</h3>
In contrast to the oxidation state, which indicates how oxidised an atom is in a molecule, the oxidation number describes the charge that the core metal atom will retain once all ligands have been removed.
To know more about oxidation number:
brainly.com/question/13182308
#SPJ4
Answer: Originally viewed as a single event, the Taconic orogeny is now known to consist of at least three episodes. The first took place in the Early Ordovician Epoch near Maine and Newfoundland. The second was centred on eastern Tennessee in the Middle Ordovician Epoch.
<span>1 trial : you have nothing to compare the result with - you don't know if it's a mistake.
2 trials : you can compare results - if very different, one may have gone wrong, but which one?
3 trials : if 2 results are close and 3rd far away, 3rd probably unreliable and can be rejected.
******************************
First calculate the enthalpy of fusion. M, C and m,c = mass and
specific heat of calorimeter and water; n, L = mass and heat of fusion
of ice; T = temperature fall.
L = (mc+MC)T/n.
c=4.18 J/gK. I assume calorimeter was copper, so C=0.385 J/gK.
1. M = 409g, m = 45g. T = 22c, n = 14g
L = (45*4.18+409*0.385)*22/14 = 543.0 J/g.
2. M = 409g, m = 49g, T = 20c, n = 13g
L = (49*4.18+409*0.385)*20/13 = 557.4 J/g.
3. M = 409g, m = 54g, T = 20c, n = 14g
L = (54*4.18+409*0.385)*20/14 = 547.4 J/g.
(i) Estimate error in L from spread of 3 results.
Average L = 549.3 J/g.
average of squared differences (variance) = (6.236^2+8.095^2+1.859^2)/3 = 35.96
standard deviation = 5.9964
standard error = SD/(N-1) = 5.9964/2 = 3 J/g approx.
% error = 3/547 x 100% = 0.5%.
(ii) Estimate error in L from accuracy of measurements:
error in masses = +/-0.5g
error in T = +/-0.5c
For Trial 3
M = 409g, error = 0.5g
m = 463-409, error = sqrt(0.5^2+0.5^2) = 0.5*sqrt(2)
n =(516-463)-(448-409)=14, error = 0.5*sqrt(4) = 1.0g
K = (mc+MC)=383, error = sqrt[2*(0.5*4.18)^2+(0.5*0.385)^2] = 2.962
L = K*T/n
% errors are
K: 3/383 x 100% = 0.77
T: 0.5/20 x 100% = 2.5
n: 1.0/14 x 100% = 7.14
% errors in K and T are << error in n, so we can ignore them.
% error in L = same as in n = 7% x 547.4 = 40 (always round final error to 1 sig fig).
*************************************
The result is (i) L= 549 +/- 3 J/g or (ii) L = 550 +/- 40 J/g.
Both are very far above accepted figure of 334 J/g, so there is at least
one systematic error in the experiment or the calculations.
eg calorimeter may not be copper, so C is not 0.385 J/gK. (If it was
polystyrene, which absorbs/ transmits little heat, the effective value
of C would be very low, reducing L.)
Using +/- 40 is probably best (more cautious).
However, the spread in the actual results is much smaller; try to explain this discrepancy - eg
* measurements were "fiddled" to get better results; other Trials were made but only best 3 were chosen.
* measurements were more accurate than I assumed (eg masses to nearest 0.1g but rounded to 1g when written down).
Other sources of error:
L=(mc+MC)T/n is too high, so n (ice melted) may be too small, or T (temp fall) too high - why?
* it is suspicious that all final temperatures were 0c - was this
actually measured or just guessed? a higher final temp would reduce L.
* we have assumed initial and final temperature of ice was 0c, it may
actually have been colder, so less ice would melt - this could explain
small values of n
* some water might have been left in container when unmelted ice was
weighed (eg clinging to ice) - again this could explain small n;
* poor insulation - heat gained from surroundings, melting more ice,
increasing n - but this would reduce measured L below 334 J/g not
increase it.
* calorimeter still cold from last trial when next one started, not
given time to reach same temperature as water - this would reduce n.
Hope This Helps :)
</span>
