• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

calcium carbonate q (2 Viewers)

Bokky

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
112
Location
123 non-fake street
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
ah crap! i got 1.4g :( now i remember that i timesed the moles of the HCL by 2 coz there was 2 moles of it. I shouldntve!!! grrr. Ah well, i recon i nailed the rest of the exam, the majority of it anyway :)
 

richz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,348
falltopieces said:
I got 0.75g too
unfortunately, we are rong :(, shud have read the q. any 06ers out there, my lesson to u is to read qs
 

Xenocide

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
47
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2005
You work out that there are 0.15 moles of HCl:

You work out how many moles of NaOH are used, something like 0.0138 or something. Then u realise that the amoutn of carbonate must have neutralised (0.15-0.0138) moles of HCL. You then halve this due to equation and multiple by molar weight. Correct answer should be around 0.6x grams.
 

~ ReNcH ~

!<-- ?(°«°)? -->!
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,493
Location
/**North Shore**\
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katietheseal said:
im pretty sure you had to take the excess number moles of hcl away from the original which was 0.015-something like 0.0014, so 0.0136 moles of hcl reacted with the CaCO3, then mass = 0.0136x100.09 or something like that, so about 1.36 grams i got. but everyone getting o.6 has got me worried

lol, but chems over:D
The molar ratio was such that you had to halve the number of moles i.e. 0.5 x 0.0136 x 100.09 = 0.68g.
 

katietheseal

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
2
~ ReNcH ~ said:
The molar ratio was such that you had to halve the number of moles i.e. 0.5 x 0.0136 x 100.09 = 0.68g.
damn, yep u right im pretty sure, i probably, stupily messed up the simple formula, hope they're not too harsh in the marking
 

serge

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
635
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
~ ReNcH ~ said:
The molar ratio was such that you had to halve the number of moles i.e. 0.5 x 0.0136 x 100.09 = 0.68g.
that was for the carbonate but the NaOH was 1:1
 

Numero Uno

Active Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,189
Location
Sydney North ^ North Shore
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
~ ReNcH ~ said:
The molar ratio was such that you had to halve the number of moles i.e. 0.5 x 0.0136 x 100.09 = 0.68g.
hmm yeah it does seem right
i got that as well
but for some reason i times it by two for some reason ..
well there goes a mark .. oh well
 

serge

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
635
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
so im thinking, 1/2 whatever u got as a HCL number of moles...

then minus the number of NaOH moles used up in neutralisation
and then times that whole result by the molar mass 100.9 or something..
 

jynxe

Member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
31
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I think NaOH, from memory was like 0.014 L and .1 molar so it was 0.0014 moles.
That's the amount required to neutralise the extra HCl, so the HSC used in the original reaction is 0.015 - 0.0014 = 0.0136 moles.

But, from the reaction, the molar ratio of HCl: CaCO3 is 2:1

so the moles of CaCO3 = 6.8 x 10^-3
and thus mass (m = n.M) = 6.8 x 10^-3 x (40.08+ 16 x 3 + 12.01) = 0.680612 grams.

I hope =P

PS hey Serge it's Erica =P
 
Last edited by a moderator:

~ ReNcH ~

!<-- ?(°«°)? -->!
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,493
Location
/**North Shore**\
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
serge said:
that was for the carbonate but the NaOH was 1:1
Yea, the ratio required in the titration part was 1:1 i.e. HCl:NaOH. But in the second part (to find the mass of calcium carbonate), you had to use the first equation...I think it was part a) and in this equation the molar ratio was 2 HCl: 1 CaCO3
 

souha882002

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
29
b_flat_major THATS EXACTLY WHAT I DID! And i got the same answer as you, but i was worried about rounding off because last year they were marked down for incorrect significant figures . i just put it to 2 sig figures.........i hope we did it the right way!
 

AreYouAlright?

Actuarial Co-op 2006
Joined
Sep 16, 2004
Messages
133
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Dam. I knew it was something like that but i was subtracting 0.015 from the value we get from the titration and it was negative..... *hits head on desk* should have known the subtraction was other way around...
 

Dumsum

has a large Member;
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,552
Location
Maroubra South
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
FUCK I think I missed a decimal place in one of my calculations... so I was out by like a factor of 10. There goes a mark...
 

banana_monkey

Better than you
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
69
Location
Asquith
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
~ ReNcH ~ said:
The molar ratio was such that you had to halve the number of moles i.e. 0.5 x 0.0136 x 100.09 = 0.68g.
Yeah, that sounds right. That was my reasonining at least. I'm pretty sure I also got around 0.6something. I found the question a bit tough though, I've never ran into a question were you had to take into account the excess and use it to find the concentration of the original substance. Never seen it in ANY book I had. Damm you BOS!
 

alluring

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
18
Location
South-west Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
ahhh fck meee,
fckn dont know why i forgot to put water as a product in the reaction
fckkk
how many marks would i lose? does anyone know?
 

serge

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
635
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
alluring said:
ahhh fck meee,
fckn dont know why i forgot to put water as a product in the reaction
fckkk
how many marks would i lose? does anyone know?
yes, BOS chem markers know
 

jynxe

Member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
31
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
serge said:
hey, howd u find multiple choice
I haven't checked! I didn't bring my exam paper out with me (I keep leaving it on my desk) but I hope I did alright with it. I bet you did well. Just one more to go. Physics and then woooooo
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top