The Student Room Group

Magnesium exists as three isotopes, deducing the percentages of them in a sample

Magnesium exists as three isotopes: Mg24, Mg25, Mg26
Mg25 atoms make up 10% by mass in a sample or magnesium. Magnesium has Ar = 24.3

Use this information to deduce the percentages of the other two magnesium isotopes present in the sample.
I'm stuck how to do this (I have two unknowns in one equation- probably doing it wrong), any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Reply 1
Avatar for mangala
mangala
3
Mg26 - Mg24 = 2

2 = too

too = too many tories

exactly
Reply 2
Avatar for z33
z33
21
no mass spectrum?! *malfunctions*

hmmm...

i found this?
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100914140018AA39dVt
Original post by Tim73
Magnesium exists as three isotopes: Mg24, Mg25, Mg26
Mg25 atoms make up 10% by mass in a sample or magnesium. Magnesium has Ar = 24.3

Use this information to deduce the percentages of the other two magnesium isotopes present in the sample.
I'm stuck how to do this (I have two unknowns in one equation- probably doing it wrong), any help would be appreciated. Thanks


Fun, fun, fun ...

You can use the 10% of 25-Mg to work out an average mass of the other two isotopes together.

Then you can use that value and the two other masses to find the relative proportions of those two isotopes (remembering that they add up to 90%)

Never seen a question of this type before ... fun fun fun.
Reply 4
Avatar for Tim73
Tim73
OP
5
Original post by charco

You can use the 10% of 25-Mg to work out an average mass of the other two isotopes together.
.


I'm confused, how do I do that?
Reply 5
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
(0.1*25+x*24+(0.9-x)*26)/3 = 24.3

Just use a bit of algebra, easy.
Reply 6
Avatar for Tim73
Tim73
OP
5
Original post by Maker
(0.1*25+x*24+(0.9-x)*26)/3 = 24.3

Just use a bit of algebra, easy.


How come it's not divided by 100? Since I thought it should be divided by the total abundance and that would be 100%.
Um and I tried it and got a negative answer of -23.5 for x? Either I went wrong somewhere or that doesn't work.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Tim73
How come it's not divided by 100? Since I thought it should be divided by the total abundance and that would be 100%.
Um and I tried it and got a negative answer of -23.5 for x? Either I went wrong somewhere or that doesn't work.


Here you go ...

[video]https://youtu.be/J9j28QNUvhI[/video]

[video="youtube;J9j28QNUvhI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?​v=J9j28QNUvhI[/video]
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 8
Avatar for Tim73
Tim73
OP
5
Original post by charco
Here you go ...


Thank you! You saved me lol

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you