1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
nataly862011 [7]
3 years ago
12

The bowling ball is whizzing down the bowling lane at 4 m/s. If the mass of the bowling ball is 7 kg, what is its kinetic energy

?
Chemistry
1 answer:
natali 33 [55]3 years ago
4 0
KE = (1/2)(m)(v^2)

KE = (1/2)(7)(4^2)

KE = (1/2)(112)

KE = 56 J
You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!
dsp73

Answer: 1. 2Al+3CuCl_2\rightarrow 2AlCl_3+3Cu

2. 3 moles of CuCl_2 : 2 moles of Al

3. 0.33 moles of CuCl_2 : 0.92 moles of Al

4. CuCl_2 is the limiting reagent and Al is the excess reagent.

5. Theoretical yield of AlCl_3 is 29.3 g

Explanation:

To calculate the moles :

\text{Moles of solute}=\frac{\text{given mass}}{\text{Molar Mass}}    

\text{Moles of} Al=\frac{25.0g}{27g/mol}=0.92moles

\text{Moles of} CuCl_2=\frac{45.0g}{134g/mol}=0.33moles

The balanced chemical equation is:

2Al+3CuCl_2\rightarrow 2AlCl_3+3Cu  

According to stoichiometry :

3 moles of CuCl_2 require = 2 moles of Al

Thus 0.33 moles of CuCl_2 will require=\frac{2}{3}\times 0.33=0.22moles  of Al

Thus CuCl_2 is the limiting reagent as it limits the formation of product and Al is the excess reagent.

As 3 moles of CuCl_2 give = 2 moles of AlCl_3

Thus 0.33 moles of CuCl_2 give =\frac{2}{3}\times 0.33=0.22moles  of AlCl_3

Theoretical yield of AlCl_3=moles\times {\text {Molar mass}}=0.22moles\times 133.34g/mol=29.3

Thus 29.3 g of aluminium chloride is formed.

5 0
2 years ago
1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 how many unpaired electrons are in the atom represented by the electron configuration above?
Sedbober [7]
It's a combination of factors:
Less electrons paired in the same orbital
More electrons with parallel spins in separate orbitals
Pertinent valence orbitals NOT close enough in energy for electron pairing to be stabilized enough by large orbital size
DISCLAIMER: Long answer, but it's a complicated issue, so... :)
A lot of people want to say that it's because a "half-filled subshell" increases stability, which is a reason, but not necessarily the only reason. However, for chromium, it's the significant reason.
It's also worth mentioning that these reasons are after-the-fact; chromium doesn't know the reasons we come up with; the reasons just have to be, well, reasonable.
The reasons I can think of are:
Minimization of coulombic repulsion energy
Maximization of exchange energy
Lack of significant reduction of pairing energy overall in comparison to an atom with larger occupied orbitals
COULOMBIC REPULSION ENERGY
Coulombic repulsion energy is the increased energy due to opposite-spin electron pairing, in a context where there are only two electrons of nearly-degenerate energies.
So, for example...
↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−− is higher in energy than
↑
↓
−−−−−

↓
↑
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−
To make it easier on us, we can crudely "measure" the repulsion energy with the symbol
Π
c
. We'd just say that for every electron pair in the same orbital, it adds one
Π
c
unit of destabilization.
When you have something like this with parallel electron spins...
↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−
It becomes important to incorporate the exchange energy.
EXCHANGE ENERGY
Exchange energy is the reduction in energy due to the number of parallel-spin electron pairs in different orbitals.
It's a quantum mechanical argument where the parallel-spin electrons can exchange with each other due to their indistinguishability (you can't tell for sure if it's electron 1 that's in orbital 1, or electron 2 that's in orbital 1, etc), reducing the energy of the configuration.
For example...
↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−− is lower in energy than
↑
↓
−−−−−

↓
↑
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−
To make it easier for us, a crude way to "measure" exchange energy is to say that it's equal to
Π
e
for each pair that can exchange.
So for the first configuration above, it would be stabilized by
Π
e
(
1
↔
2
), but the second configuration would have a
0
Π
e
stabilization (opposite spins; can't exchange).
PAIRING ENERGY
Pairing energy is just the combination of both the repulsion and exchange energy. We call it
Π
, so:
Π
=
Π
c
+
Π
e

Inorganic Chemistry, Miessler et al.
Inorganic Chemistry, Miessler et al.
Basically, the pairing energy is:
higher when repulsion energy is high (i.e. many electrons paired), meaning pairing is unfavorable
lower when exchange energy is high (i.e. many electrons parallel and unpaired), meaning pairing is favorable
So, when it comes to putting it together for chromium... (
4
s
and
3
d
orbitals)
↑
↓
−−−−−
↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−
compared to
↑
↓
−−−−−
↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−

↑
↓
−−−−−
is more stable.
For simplicity, if we assume the
4
s
and
3
d
electrons aren't close enough in energy to be considered "nearly-degenerate":
The first configuration has
Π
=
10
Π
e
.
(Exchanges:
1
↔
2
,
1
↔
3
,
1
↔
4
,
1
↔
5
,
2
↔
3
,

2
↔
4
,
2
↔
5
,
3
↔
4
,
3
↔
5
,
4
↔
5
)
The second configuration has
Π
=
Π
c
+
6
Π
e
.
(Exchanges:
1
↔
2
,
1
↔
3
,
1
↔
4
,
2
↔
3
,
2
↔
4
,
3
↔
4
)
Technically, they are about
3.29 eV
apart (Appendix B.9), which means it takes about
3.29 V
to transfer a single electron from the
3
d
up to the
4
s
.
We could also say that since the
3
d
orbitals are lower in energy, transferring one electron to a lower-energy orbital is helpful anyways from a less quantitative perspective.
COMPLICATIONS DUE TO ORBITAL SIZE
Note that for example,
W
has a configuration of
[
X
e
]
5
d
4
6
s
2
, which seems to contradict the reasoning we had for
Cr
, since the pairing occurred in the higher-energy orbital.
But, we should also recognize that
5
d
orbitals are larger than
3
d
orbitals, which means the electron density can be more spread out for
W
than for
Cr
, thus reducing the pairing energy
Π
.
That is,
Π
W
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
An increase in greenhouse gases results in?​
grin007 [14]
An increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produces a positive climate forcing, or warming effect. From 1990 to 2015, the total warming effect from greenhouse gases added by humans to the Earth's atmosphere increased by 37 percent.
5 0
3 years ago
Determine the formula for iron l oxide
Elena L [17]
Fe2O is the formula for that
4 0
3 years ago
Please help me out Fast people
kifflom [539]
I think convergent but could be wrong
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • If you wanted to look at a cell wall.Which type of cell wall would you observe?
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following is a method used by atoms to form a chemical bond? Merging electrons Merging protons Sharing electrons Sh
    10·2 answers
  • At constant temperature and volume, a sample of oxygen gas is added to a sample of nitrogen gas. The pressure of the mixture is
    8·1 answer
  • A. 0.2436 sample of an unknown substance was dissolved in 20.0mL of cyclohexane. The density of cyclohexane is 0.779 g/mL. The f
    6·1 answer
  • I really need an answer please help
    12·2 answers
  • True or false<br> sugar melting an example of oxidation<br> and <br> water evaporating
    15·1 answer
  • _ S8 +_02 +_ SO3
    14·1 answer
  • Please help, it's a task in science and I'm really bad at this subject.
    8·1 answer
  • A compound being used in experimental medicine is 78.14% boron (B) and 21.86% hydrogen (H). The empirical formula of the compoun
    10·1 answer
  • Predictable moderate winds between 5 &amp; 25 degrees North or South latitude are called?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!