The mass of 1.72 mol of magnesium fluoride is 107 grams.
To determine the mass of 1.72 mol of magnesium fluoride, we first need the chemical formula of magnesium fluoride. Magnesium forms a +2 ion (Mg+2) and fluoride forms a -1 ion (F-1). Since all compounds formed from ions have to be electrically neutral, we need 2 fluoride ions and 1 magnesium ion. Therefore, the formula for magnesium fluoride is MgF2.
Now we need to determine the molar mass of the compound from the molar mass values from the periodic table. Let's use a table to calculate this molar mass.
Molar mass of MgF2
Element Molar Mass (g/mol) Quantity Total (g/mol)
Mg 24.31 1 24.31
F 19.00 2 38.00
Total molar mass of MgF2 = 24.31 g/mol + 38.00 g/mol = 62.31 g/mol
This is the mass of one mole of the substance. If we have 1.72 mols of it, we multiply 1.72 by 62.31.
1.72 mol (62.31 g/mol) = 107 grams
We rounded to 107 to keep the correct number of significant digits in our answer.
Answer:Evolution
Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. … If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection).
The mass of copper deposited is 9.589 g .
Given ,
A volatile cell using Cu/Cu2+ and Sn/Sn2+ half cells is set up at standard conditions ,and each compartment has a volume of 345 ml .
current = 0.17 A
time = 48 hrs =48 (60) (60) =172800 sec
we know , I = Q/t
thus , Q ,charge= It = 0.17 (17280) =29376 C
Then ,atomic mass of copper is 63 g
And valency of Cu is 2.
Thus , the equivalent mass of copper is 63/2 = 31.5
We know , 96500 coulombs of electricity produce copper = 31.5 g
29376 C of electricity produce copper =9.589 g
Hence , 9.589 g of Copper is deposited .
Learn more about charge here:
brainly.com/question/18102056
#SPJ4
I believe D. because all the organisms that live in a lake can be a bunch of living things that would be considered a population and not a species. I canceled out B. from the get go because, I don’t believe non living organisms can be in a population ?
Please get back to me if I’m right or wrong :)
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 …
