Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For anyone worrying about the last question, the answer was 7. I see a few people got 4, but they forgot to account for the hardness of the water. you have to add 3 becuase the water is hard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charles Chester)
    For anyone worrying about the last question, the answer was 7. I see a few people got 4, but they forgot to account for the hardness of the water. you have to add 3 becuase the water is hard.
    Do you think that water was trying to throw hands 👊👊💥✊?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GillyTheGhillie)
    You see, this is my problem, it IS their fault, if you don't know the specification like the back of your hand, and then some, you HAVE NOT done enough revision, none of the calculations were complicated, nothing was off-spec, none of the questions were worded badly, this wasn't some wet and oily lap in the reasonably priced car, this was perfect conditions, it was the choice of every student whether they wanted to drive the reliant robin (not revise) or a McLaren 675LT (revise).
    (Original post by GillyTheGhillie)
    Exactly. I guarantee there is not a single person here who came out of that exam feeling like they did awfully, who actually did enough revision.
    It seems as though you've done so much 'revision' that your social skills are suffering. In what way are those posts helpful or constructive to people on here looking for answers/support? They serve absolutely no purpose other than to massage one's ego. I mean are you seriously that arrogant? Shocking... :facepalm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lion2121)
    I did this, you'd probs still get 2 I'd expect
    i also did this threw me that there were more moles of salt than acid
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alu4days)
    some answers from prev pages and some that i remembered, if wrong, please correct:
    [Cu(NH3)4(H20)2]2+
    [CuCl4]2-
    Draw the 2isomers out and trans and optical
    Empirical F (forgotit) with 2- charge
    2.9 x10^-2 rate constant k
    -1099hydation entalphy
    104, Kc
    2.12
    3.43 pH
    13.03
    10.68
    X= 4
    CuCO3 ?
    Starch solution, black/ blue to colourless
    Linear
    Ag=0 goes to +1, oxidised Ois 0 goes to -2, reduced
    I2+ 2.5O2 arrow i2o5
    6OH- + 3I2 arrow 3H2O + 5I- + IO3-
    4I- + 2Cu2+ arrow I2 + 2CuI
    Cu2+ is: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d9.
    Cu+ is: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s13d10
    Ligand subwith 4Cl?
    Precipitationreaction with OH?
    HNO2eqmarrow H+ + NO2-
    Eqm movesright when OH added as makes water to replace H+
    Eqm movesleft when H+ added, as makes HNO2
    Empirical was CuC2H4O10 2-
    For the isomers question it's one is trans the other is both cis and optical
    For the electron config of Cu+ it's .....3p63d10 (the 4s electron is gone)
    For the iodine question about adding AgNO3:
    Ag + I -> AgI, [I-] decreases equilibrium 2 shifts left forming I- and I2(aq)
    [I2(aq] increases equilibrium 1 shifts left forming I2(s)
    Observations: Mixture of yellow (AgI) and grey black I2(s) precipitates is observed
    and I thought that the question for the ionic equation was 2Cu2+ + 2I- -> 2Cu+ + I2, but I may well be wrong as I was doing this right at the end, was CuI a precipitate, if it is then you are right if it isn't I think I'm right
    Nice work for putting those together thanks mate
    THINK SOMEONE PUT THE EQUATION FOR THE CN- AG REACTION A FEW PAGES BACK IF YOU CAN TRACK THAT DOWN?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what are 13.03 and 2.12 for?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.russell)
    Empirical was CuC2H4O10 2-
    For the isomers question it's one is trans the other is both cis and optical
    For the electron config of Cu+ it's .....3p63d10 (the 4s electron is gone)
    For the iodine question about adding AgNO3:
    Ag + I -> AgI, [I-] decreases equilibrium 2 shifts left forming I- and I2(aq)
    [I2(aq] increases equilibrium 1 shifts left forming I2(s)
    Observations: Mixture of yellow (AgI) and grey black I2(s) precipitates is observed
    and I thought that the question for the ionic equation was 2Cu2+ + 2I- -> 2Cu+ + I2, but I may well be wrong as I was doing this right at the end, was CuI a precipitate, if it is then you are right if it isn't I think I'm right
    Nice work for putting those together thanks mate
    THINK SOMEONE PUT THE EQUATION FOR THE CN- AG REACTION A FEW PAGES BACK IF YOU CAN TRACK THAT DOWN?
    i think it said CuI was made and it was a precipitate and I added your changes/ observations and i'll try to find it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrZebraCookie)
    Yes, but I think it's only 2 marks lost. No negative marking right?
    Why 3 and 4 don't work ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShannonD_1697)
    Glad I'm not the only one...crying on the inside
    Same
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by mamounaltayeb)
    Why 3 and 4 don't work ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Cr3+ had to be on the left hand side
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alu4days)
    i think it said CuI was made and it was a precipitate and I added your changes/ observations and i'll try to find it
    you're right, CuI is insoluble in water dw
    I was doing it right at the end cos I was doing the ionic equation for the question above (which asked for some other full equation) and realised my mistake with about 10 seconds left lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GillyTheGhillie)
    You see, this is my problem, it IS their fault, if you don't know the specification like the back of your hand, and then some, you HAVE NOT done enough revision, none of the calculations were complicated, nothing was off-spec, none of the questions were worded badly, this wasn't some wet and oily lap in the reasonably priced car, this was perfect conditions, it was the choice of every student whether they wanted to drive the reliant robin (not revise) or a McLaren 675LT (revise).
    My daughter felt this was a good paper, she was well prepared and came out feeling happy, However she was kind enough to empathise with her fellow class mates, some of whom have difficult situations. Perhaps it is better to remain silent if you are unable to be supportive. Isn't that what this site is also about!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    4Au + 8CN- + O2 + 2H20 = 4[Au(CN)2]- + 4OH-
    Found it alu4days this is what I had as well I'm pretty sure
    Also for the catalyst I think there are several valid points, such as;
    1) It is in the overall reaction equation
    2) Not regenerated
    3) Has no impact on rate of reaction
    I went for the third option, have a nasty feeling you may need more than 1 answer for the mark
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    It was neutral until the people who found it hard started attacking everyone else. Not cool to take your anger out on others.
    It wasn't neutral it was alkaline [OH-]>[H+]
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leobrave)
    It wasn't neutral it was alkaline [OH-]>[H+]
    :gigg:

    legit what I was thinking
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hixy)
    My daughter felt this was a good paper, she was well prepared and came out feeling happy, However she was kind enough to empathise with her fellow class mates, some of whom have difficult situations. Perhaps it is better to remain silent if you are unable to be supportive. Isn't that what this site is also about!
    yeah this is what this site should be about..... , you don't know hardcore TSR people much i guess. don't take it too serious for comments in internet lol.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leobrave)
    It wasn't neutral it was alkaline [OH-]>[H+]
    I was referring to the arguments occurring in the forum.

    But yes it was alkaline and I still don't understand why.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Slice of Pi)
    It seems as though you've done so much 'revision' that your social skills are suffering. In what way are those posts helpful or constructive to people on here looking for answers/support? They serve absolutely no purpose other than to massage one's ego. I mean are you seriously that arrogant? Shocking... :facepalm:
    What's more shocking is that people like you are still falling for these trolls... After every exam (regardless of difficulty or exam board) they do the same thing in each forum...

    It's great banter though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    I was referring to the arguments occurring in the forum.

    But yes it was alkaline and I still don't understand why.
    Kw = [OH-][H+]

    Kw and ph given. Rearrange formula to obtain [OH-]. Compared with [H+] (worked out by 10^-ph), [OH] > [H+], thereby making the solution alkaline...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolo11)
    Kw = [OH-][H+]

    Kw and ph given. Rearrange formula to obtain [OH-]. Compared with [H+] (worked out by 10^-ph), [OH] > [H+], thereby making the solution alkaline...
    Oh ****. I did exactly that except I said Kw/10^-7 is H+ and not OH-. Oh dear haha.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.