December 22, 2024, 03:20:42 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: finding the number of atoms  (Read 16391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jennielynn_1980

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-4
  • Gender: Female
finding the number of atoms
« on: May 17, 2006, 10:02:16 PM »
I am trying to find the number of atoms in the following

a) 52.5 g calcium metal
b) 1.5 mol carbon
c) 1.5 mol carbon dioxide

So I have to find the molar mass for each before proceding right?  In which case the molar mass for
a) is 40.078 g/mol
b) 12.0107 g/mol
c) How do I find the molar mass for this?  Is it the molar mass for carbon plus the molar mass for oxygen multiplied by 2?

Thanks :)

Offline mike

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1245
  • Mole Snacks: +121/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2006, 10:05:40 PM »
Yes
There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts.

Offline syko sykes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2006, 11:08:30 PM »
then use avagodro's (hope i spelled that right) number to convert moles to atoms

in other words, multiply number of moles by 6.02x1023
AP Chemistry Squad Member [V]

Offline mike

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1245
  • Mole Snacks: +121/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2006, 11:11:29 PM »
Quote
avagodro's (hope i spelled that right)

Nope ;)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 11:18:16 PM by mike »
There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts.

Offline syko sykes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2006, 11:18:30 PM »
avagodro's (hope i spelled that right)

Nope ;)
Avogadro's... that's a little better

and if you want to be more precise, Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 1023
AP Chemistry Squad Member [V]

Offline jennielynn_1980

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-4
  • Gender: Female
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2006, 01:04:45 PM »
So for

a) the answer would be 0.7394
b) 1.9999
c) 1.4999

Is this right?  Or am I missing a step?

Offline rctrackstar2007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Mole Snacks: +18/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • I need scoobie snacks and a 5 on the test!
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2006, 03:09:50 PM »
aren't the units atoms/mol??

if that's correct then your answers would be wrong
AP Chemistry Squad Member [002]

The world is like an atom. The not-quite-as-intelligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. We, we are the electrons. Granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. We all have differing intelligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. It's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which I am a big fan of.

-Your's truly, 2006;
  written to describe the HS chem student apart from the average being

Offline tennis freak

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • Mole Snacks: +10/-9
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2006, 05:52:55 PM »
for the first i got 7.89E23
second and third it should be 9.033E23
because you take moles*avogadro's number to get atoms and the second and third are already in moles so they need no change.
AP Chemistry Squad Member [004]

Don't be afraid to try something new, remember amateurs built the ark and professionals built the titanic!

Offline syko sykes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2006, 12:45:02 PM »
for the first i got 7.89E23
second and third it should be 9.033E23
because you take moles*avogadro's number to get atoms and the second and third are already in moles so they need no change.
b and c wouldn't be the same because one molecule contains a different number of atoms. b is probably double your answer because pure carbon typically bonds with itself to form C2. C is probably triple your answer because there are 3 atoms (1 carbon and 2 oxygen) in one molecule of carbon dioxide. I say probably on these because i didn't actually calculate, i'm just assuming you took 1.5*6.02*10^23.
AP Chemistry Squad Member [V]

Offline rctrackstar2007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Mole Snacks: +18/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • I need scoobie snacks and a 5 on the test!
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2006, 12:50:41 PM »
A i got, 4.7E23

40g/mol / 52.5g x 6.2E23atoms/mol leaves 4.7E23atoms
AP Chemistry Squad Member [002]

The world is like an atom. The not-quite-as-intelligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. We, we are the electrons. Granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. We all have differing intelligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. It's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which I am a big fan of.

-Your's truly, 2006;
  written to describe the HS chem student apart from the average being

Offline Will

  • Organic Dude
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2006, 01:13:45 PM »
tennis freak is right for A & B and syko sykes got C right.
A is: (52.5 / 40.078) x (6.0221415 × 1023) which is 7.889 x 1023 atoms.
For B and C you don't need to worry about Mr of carbon etc. because it already tells you the moles. For B it fair to assume that they mean carbon atoms because there are so many allotropes of carbon (graphite (and diamond to some extent) being the most common), you don't know which one they are talking about. It is also possible to make carbon atoms but it is extremely difficult and dangerous.
Hence,
B is: 1.5 x (6.0221415 × 1023) which is 9.033 x 1023 atoms.
For C you multiply this by 3 because there are 3 atoms in a CO2 molecule.
C is: 3 x 1.5 x (6.0221415 × 1023) which is 2.71 x 1024 atoms.

Offline jennielynn_1980

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-4
  • Gender: Female
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2006, 02:52:31 PM »
Thank you all!  I was confused with the wording of it all.  I have never taken chemistry before and I am enrolled in advanced 12th grade chem  :-\ so my head is spinning a bit as it is also a home study course.

Offline tennis freak

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • Mole Snacks: +10/-9
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2006, 05:43:16 PM »
believe me this website would have helped me so much more if i had found it sooner, so just keep asking questions on here and you should be fine :)
AP Chemistry Squad Member [004]

Don't be afraid to try something new, remember amateurs built the ark and professionals built the titanic!

Offline jennielynn_1980

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-4
  • Gender: Female
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2006, 09:13:48 PM »
I already love this site!  Everyone here is very helpful and friendly :)

One last question about this:

if one mole  = 6.02 x 1023 of any substance, then why do I multiply 1.5 moles of CO2 by three?  Should the answer not be the same as the second seeing as the moles are the same?  I can see that there are two oxygens and one carbon but if it is still 1.5 moles then shouldn't the number of particles be the same?

Offline Will

  • Organic Dude
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: finding the number of atoms
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2006, 09:18:46 PM »
if one mole  = 6.02 x 1023 of any substance, then why do I multiply 1.5 moles of CO2 by three?  Should the answer not be the same as the second seeing as the moles are the same?  I can see that there are two oxygens and one carbon but if it is still 1.5 moles then shouldn't the number of particles be the same?

You understand the chemistry perfectly- there are the same number of particles in B as C, but the question is asking about the number of atoms (I think!), and there are 3 atoms in one CO2 particle, so you multiply it by three. If the question asked for the number of particles then B would be the same as C.

Sponsored Links