Why didn't you round up to whole number like you did in previous example of finding molar mass of a compound? Is there a rule of when you do or don't???
There a much easier way than using fractions when given a question to find moles We know that 1 mole of carbon contains 12 grams of carbon So 2.5 mole of carbon contains , 12*2.5 grams of carbon = 30 grams of carbon
This is a really good explanation! What I am wondering about are some tables that I find in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 54th ed., (1973-1974) , that have the title "Gravimetric Factors and Their Logarithms." How do I make a correspondence between this table and what you just did? For example, the CRC table shows Weighed: Al (aluminum, of course) Sought: Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) Factor: 1.88946 Log of Factor +10: 10.27634 Reciprocal of Factor: 0.52925 Log of Reciprocal of Factor +10: 9.72366 Now, some calculation shows that the "Factor" is the ratio of the molecular weight of Al2O3 to the molecular weight of Al2. So that matches nicely with your explanation in the video. What I am wondering about is, why does this table go on to include "log of factor", "reciprocal of factor" and "log of reciprocal of factor"? These seem as if they are not needed for the sort of gravimetric analysis you demonstrated. Are these relics from the days before calculators when one had to do computations by hand?
The problem says 36.5 moles, but he wrote 35.5 because that is the atomic mass of a Cl atom (in amu). And he put it over 71 because it’s Cl2 so you’d need to multiply the 35.5x2, which equals 71. Hope this helps!
