There were square brackets as it's already explained in the other post.You have solve the brackets first BIDMAS.The correct energy value is 27### and -418 Kj/mol enthalpy change.
1st, 2nd were not valid because rounding off doesnt give a huge difference. Heat loss and incomplete comb were the valid statements
But how was the incomplete combustion one valid?? If anything, incomplete combustion would have caused soot to form on the can so the mass difference (i.e. mass of ethanol) would be lower, so the calculated value should have been higher.
There were square brackets as it's already explained in the other post.You have solve the brackets first BIDMAS.The correct energy value is 27### and -418 Kj/mol enthalpy change.
But the x-axis was discrete data. How could that be a line graph?
Hmmm why are you bringing statistics into this? The x axis should have 5 values... 1,2,3,4,5... to indicate the number of carbon atoms in a particular compound.
Hmmm why are you bringing statistics into this? The x axis should have 5 values... 1,2,3,4,5... to indicate the number of carbon atoms in a particular compound.
was that number of Carbon atoms or the number of TOTAL ATOMS I did for number of TOTAL ATOMS
Hmmm why are you bringing statistics into this? The x axis should have 5 values... 1,2,3,4,5... to indicate the number of carbon atoms in a particular compound.
idk thats what I read somewhere I hope they accept both
But how was the incomplete combustion one valid?? If anything, incomplete combustion would have caused soot to form on the can so the mass difference (i.e. mass of ethanol) would be lower, so the calculated value should have been higher.
What did you say as an explanation?
Wouldn't the mass be higher as we are measuring the mass of the copper can, and so if there's soot on the bottom of it, this will make the can slightly heavier. Because we are using the mass of the copper can to find the heat energy released to then find the enthalpy change of combustion.