Answer:
Organic chemistry
Explanation:
Organic chemistry is part of the chemistry that studies carbon compounds, which also use organic compounds, which have characteristics.
This problem is providing us with the molality of a solution of calcium iodide as 0.01 m. So the most likely van't Hoff factor is required and theoretically found to be 3 due to the following:
<h3>Van't Hoff factor:</h3>
In chemistry, the correct characterization of solutions also imply the identification of the ions it will release in aqueous solution. For that reason, the van't Hoff factor gives us an idea of this number, according to the formula the solute has got.
In such a way, for calcium iodide, we write its ionization equation as shown below:
Assuming it is able to ionize due to the low molality, because if it was higher, then it won't ionize. Hence, since we have three moles of ion products, one Ca²⁺ and two I⁻, we can conclude the van't Hoff factor would be 3, although calculations may lead to a different, yet close result.
Learn more about the van't Hoff factor: brainly.com/question/23764376
Answer:
See detailed explanation.
Explanation:
Hello!
i. In this case, since the given chemical reaction is exothermic due to the negative change in the enthalpy of reaction, we infer that according to the mentioned principle, by lowering the temperature the reaction will shift rightwards and therefore the yield is increased; thus, you need a lower temperature than the specified.
ii. In this case, since the reaction has less moles at the products side, according to the mentioned principle it'd be necessary to rise the pressure in order to increase the yield, since the increase of pressure favors the reaction side with the fewest number of moles.
Best regards!
Answer:
False
Explanation:
While we do know that A. Leeuwenhoek used a simple microscope that consisted of only 1 lens, Hooke used a compound microscope. Although, after trying a compound microscope, Hooke found out that it strained his eyes and continued to use a simple microscope for his <em>Micrographia</em>.
Thus, we can say that the (compound) microscopes used today are different than the (simple) microscope used by Hooke and Leeuwenhoek.
