The Student Room Group

GCSE chemistry paper 1 AQA

For all of you who did AQA gcse chemistry paper 1 higher separate, what did you get for the bond energy calculation??
I got 1033 but idk
Reply 1
I can't remember exactly my answer but I believe that firstly you had to convert the total final bond of 2219 into a negative as it was an exothermic reaction (which has a negative energy change). Then you had to calculate the bond energies of the molecules and complete the rearranging to find X. I got a number around 380 although I cannot be sure that this is the correct answer. I think that it is unfair that they should give us the bond energy as a positive integer and not as negative as it was not made entirely clear that you must convert it to a negative. I hope this can help.
Reply 2
i got 392.375, could be very wrong tho
Reply 3
Original post by jar3d08
i got 392.375, could be very wrong tho

Thanks but I Doubt it is wrong, lots of people got something similar to that dw
Reply 4
Original post by jar3d08
i got 392.375, could be very wrong tho

That is what I got and my friend too!
Original post by Jasmine6789
For all of you who did AQA gcse chemistry paper 1 higher separate, what did you get for the bond energy calculation??
I got 1033 but idk

392.375
Original post by Jasmine6789
For all of you who did AQA gcse chemistry paper 1 higher separate, what did you get for the bond energy calculation??
I got 1033 but idk

I got 349 it was something like 8000 - 2300 then you take away the enthalpy for the other two parts and divided by 6 I think to get the answer
Reply 7
Original post by jar3d08
i got 392.375, could be very wrong tho


I got this too!
Reply 8
392 (3sf) is what I got
the real enthalpy change is -2219, not 2219 (exothermic = negative enthalpy change)
Propane + 5 oxygen -> 3 CO2 + 4H2O
[8(c-h) + 2(c-c) ] + 5 (o=o) -> 3(2(c=o)) + 4(2(o-h))
8(X) + 2(347) + 5(498) -> 6(805) + 8(464)
(8X + 694 + 2490) - (4830 + 3712) = -2219
8X + 3184 - 8542 = -2219
8X = 3139
X = 392.375 = 392 (3sf)
Original post by zmp903
392 (3sf) is what I got
the real enthalpy change is -2219, not 2219 (exothermic = negative enthalpy change)
Propane + 5 oxygen -> 3 CO2 + 4H2O
[8(c-h) + 2(c-c) ] + 5 (o=o) -> 3(2(c=o)) + 4(2(o-h))
8(X) + 2(347) + 5(498) -> 6(805) + 8(464)
(8X + 694 + 2490) - (4830 + 3712) = -2219
8X + 3184 - 8542 = -2219
8X = 3139
X = 392.375 = 392 (3sf)

nahhh, i put -2219 at first but then i changed it back to normal 🥲
Reply 10
Original post by abdullahawrr
I got 349 it was something like 8000 - 2300 then you take away the enthalpy for the other two parts and divided by 6 I think to get the answer

divide by 8 not 6 there were 8 C-H bonds
Reply 11
Original post by zmp903
392 (3sf) is what I got
the real enthalpy change is -2219, not 2219 (exothermic = negative enthalpy change)
Propane + 5 oxygen -> 3 CO2 + 4H2O
[8(c-h) + 2(c-c) ] + 5 (o=o) -> 3(2(c=o)) + 4(2(o-h))
8(X) + 2(347) + 5(498) -> 6(805) + 8(464)
(8X + 694 + 2490) - (4830 + 3712) = -2219
8X + 3184 - 8542 = -2219
8X = 3139
X = 392.375 = 392 (3sf)

did you have to round to sig fig? would i lsoe marks for not doing so? the only reason i didnt was because i wanted to energy amounts to be exact - since no energy can be created or destroyed
Reply 12
Original post by aanaya
did you have to round to sig fig? would i lsoe marks for not doing so? the only reason i didnt was because i wanted to energy amounts to be exact - since no energy can be created or destroyed

You definitely didn't have to - I just did it since the other values were to 3sf
Original post by zmp903
You definitely didn't have to - I just did it since the other values were to 3sf
To be fair sometimes they are annoying and take marks away for it- since you don’t actually change the number e.g if it rounded to 393 I don’t think they take marks away but rounded it correctly does sometimes mean you immediately get full marks for the question whereas if you don’t then you still can get full marks it jus relies on you working so more likely for an examiner to make a mistake
Reply 14
Original post by InmanAerospace
To be fair sometimes they are annoying and take marks away for it- since you don’t actually change the number e.g if it rounded to 393 I don’t think they take marks away but rounded it correctly does sometimes mean you immediately get full marks for the question whereas if you don’t then you still can get full marks it jus relies on you working so more likely for an examiner to make a mistake

i wrote the decimal and then the rounding so they should count either one
Reply 15
Original post by InmanAerospace
To be fair sometimes they are annoying and take marks away for it- since you don’t actually change the number e.g if it rounded to 393 I don’t think they take marks away but rounded it correctly does sometimes mean you immediately get full marks for the question whereas if you don’t then you still can get full marks it jus relies on you working so more likely for an examiner to make a mistake

yes i just didnt wanna take the risk, as techinaclly if you round it, you're cutitng off a few important kJ of energy and as energy cannot be destroyed or created, i thought it wouldn't be appropriate. should be okay anyways if working is there

Quick Reply