Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

AQA - Unit 5 - Energetics, Redox and Inorganic Chemistry

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1320

lou12

what did people get for the % at the end?

Reply 1321

cleo101

Original post by M | k e

No I think you had to reverse the sign of the lattice of formation to get lattice of dissociation first, then add this value to the Ca2+ hydration and 2 times the F- hydration. Ended up with some small negative, like ~ -50 ish?

ah dammit. yeah a lot of people got that, and for the mean enthalpy could you do products - reactants?

Reply 1322

M | k e

Original post by lou12

what did people get for the % at the end?

53.7% ish I think

Reply 1323

lou12

Original post by M | k e

Yeah I did, 0.5N2 + 3/2 H2 -> NH3 :smile:

got like -99.5 if I'm remembering the right question :tongue:

yup. nearly caught me out though. i worked out 2 moles at first!

Reply 1324

mrppaulo

Original post by lou12

dammit. i put hydrogen fuel cell

Thats right :wink:

Reply 1325

Zakir

Original post by lou12

yes you were correct. what was your lattice enthalpy value. i got -51 (i think)

yup i got that too! :smile:

you know the ethanedioate structure...was it 3 ethanedioates bonded to the Cu??

a friend said we had to show water but im sure the question said we didn't...

Reply 1326

Stirlo

Original post by subsist

Hey did people divide the ammonia equation by 2 cause it asked for one mole? :smile:

Yep I realised that about 15 minutes from the end, thank god I had time to check, so happy I did, would've probably lost 4-5 marks from those 2 questions which required it

Reply 1327

M | k e

Original post by cleo101

ah dammit. yeah a lot of people got that, and for the mean enthalpy could you do products - reactants?

Yeah I did products-reactants.

Or if you meant mean bond enthalpy, bonds broken-bonds formed.

Reply 1328

subsist

Original post by M | k e

Yeah I did, 0.5N2 + 3/2 H2 -> NH3 :smile:

got like -99.5 if I'm remembering the right question :tongue:

Epic dude i got that exact answer and a positive AG which means reaction aint feasibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :smile:

SCHOOLS OVER YEAH ROY

Reply 1329

Stirlo

Original post by Zakir

yup i got that too! :smile:

you know the ethanedioate structure...was it 3 ethanedioates bonded to the Cu??

a friend said we had to show water but im sure the question said we didn't...

We had to show the water in the equation on the first part of the question, but not with drawing the bonds

Reply 1330

M | k e

Original post by Zakir

yup i got that too! :smile:

you know the ethanedioate structure...was it 3 ethanedioates bonded to the Cu??

a friend said we had to show water but im sure the question said we didn't...

Question said 4 water molecules got removed, so I think it was [Cu(C2O4)2(H20)2]2-+4H20.

Giving co-ordinate number of 6 and octahedral shape :tongue:

Reply 1331

Zakir

Original post by Stirlo

We had to show the water in the equation on the first part of the question, but not with drawing the bonds

oh ok...whats the equation then??

Im :s

Reply 1332

kingjohno

Original post by Stirlo

I put melt it and pass an electrical current through it. If it had ions it would conduct electricity :/

I'm hoping this is a case of great minds think alike!

I have a horrible feeling they'll say that that would be 'infeasible' in a lab scenario though.

Reply 1333

jimmy303

Original post by Zakir

yup i got that too! :smile:

you know the ethanedioate structure...was it 3 ethanedioates bonded to the Cu??

a friend said we had to show water but im sure the question said we didn't...

Each ethane dioate bonds twice, and two water molecules were left so it should have been two molecules of ethane dioate I think. Makes the coordination number 6.

Water wasn't needed on the diagram, it was bolded quite heavily in thequestion lol

Reply 1334

lou12

Original post by M | k e

Question said 4 water molecules got removed, so I think it was [Cu(C2O4)2(H20)2]2-+4H20.

Giving co-ordinate number of 6 and octahedral shape :tongue:

i dunno why but when it said ionic equation it confused me. was the equation for this question still the same or did you have to remove ions

Reply 1335

magicalelf

What did people get for the bond angle?

Reply 1336

Zakir

right ok...

iv got the equation wrong then...but the coordination number and shape was right :smile:

Reply 1337

cleo101

Original post by M | k e

Yeah I did products-reactants.

Or if you meant mean bond enthalpy, bonds broken-bonds formed.

yeaa i think for the 2h2 + n2 ---> 2nh3 question or whatever was that not products - reactants or other way round

Reply 1338

M | k e

Original post by lou12

i dunno why but when it said ionic equation it confused me. was the equation for this question still the same or did you have to remove ions

Oh yeah I noticed it said Ionic equation too, but really couldn't be bothered figuring out if it made a different so just wrote the standard equation. Laziness of last exam kicked in :wink:

Reply 1339

lou12

Original post by M | k e

Question said 4 water molecules got removed, so I think it was [Cu(C2O4)2(H20)2]2-+4H20.

Giving co-ordinate number of 6 and octahedral shape :tongue:

this equation gave a complex with 2- right? please say yes!

Quick Reply

Latest

Articles for you

Edexcel A-Level Economics Paper 1 - Unofficial Mark Scheme - 18 May 2023

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers

Why I chose a law degree and what studying law was like

AQA - Unit 5 - Energetics, Redox and Inorganic Chemistry

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you