Answer:
141.0 g NaN₃.
Explanation:
It is a stichiometric problem.
Firstly, we should wright the reaction as a balanced equation:
2NaN₃ → 2Na + 3N₂
It is clear that 2.0 moles of NaN₃ decompose to 2.0 mole of Na and 3.0 moles of N₂.
Then we should convert the volume of N₂ (70.0 L) to moles via using the gas law of ideal gas: PV = nRT, n = PV / RT,
Where, P is the pressure of the gas in atm (P = 1.2 atm).
V is the volume of the gas in L(V = 70.0 L).
R is the general gas constant (R = 0.082 L.atm/mol.K).
T is the temperature in K(T = 315 K).
∴ n of N₂ = PV / RT = (1.2 atm) (70.0 L) / (0.082 L.atm/mol.K) (315 K) = 3.252 mole.
From the stichiometry:
2.0 moles of NaN₃ decomposes to → 3.0 moles of N₂
??? mole of NaN₃ decomposes to → 3.2520 moles of N₂
The number of moles of NaN₃ = (2.0 moles of NaN₃) (3.2520 moles of N₂) / (3.0 moles of N₂) = 2.168 mole.
Finally, we can convert the number of moles of NaN₃ to mass using the relation: m = n x molar mass.
Molar mass of NaN₃ = 65.0 g/mol.
the mass of NaN₃ = n x molar mass = (2.168 mole) (65.0 g/mol) = 140.92 g ≅ 141.0 g.
Answer:
Option A) Na
Explanation:
From the options given above, sodium (Na) is most likely to lose electron to form ion
Na is a group 1 metal. Metals form ions by losing electron(s).
From the options given above, only Na is a metal and so it is most likely to form ion by losing electron
Applying the conservation of mass:
Mass during bombardment:
242 (curium atom) + 4 (alpha particle)
= 246
This must equal the mass after bombardment:
1 (neutron) + x (unknown product)
246 = 1 + x
x = 245
The product is Californium-245
Answer:
Mass of 1 mole of copper is 63.83 g.
0.03916 moles of copper atoms have a mass equal to the 2.5 grams of copper penny.
Explanation:
Mass of 1 copper atom,m =
Mass of 1 mole of copper :
=
Mass of 1 mole of copper = 63.83 g
Mass of copper penny = 2.5 g
Atomic mass of copper = 63.83 g/mol
Moles of copper in 2.5 g of copper penny:
0.03916 moles of copper atoms have a mass equal to the 2.5 grams of copper penny.
Answer:
homology, in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms.
When two or more organs or structures are basically similar to each other in construction but are modified to perform different functions, they are said to be serially homologous. An example of this is a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper. Both originated in the forelimbs of early mammalian ancestors, but they have undergone different evolutionary modification to perform the radically different tasks of flying and swimming, respectively. Sometimes it is unclear whether similarities in structure in different organisms are analogous or homologous. An example of this is the wings of bats and birds. These structures are homologous in that they are in both cases modifications of the forelimb bone structure of early reptiles. But birds’ wings differ from those of bats in the number of digits and in having feathers for flight while bats have none. And most importantly, the power of flight arose independently in these two different classes of vertebrates; in birds while they were evolving from early reptiles, and in bats after their mammalian ancestors had already completely differentiated from reptiles. Thus, the wings of bats and birds can be viewed as analogous rather than homologous upon a more rigorous scrutiny of their morphological differences and evolutionary origins.
Explanation: