[Toxage]

I am afraid you are still spinning in the same place. X^- is only a spectator. There is a redox reaction taking place, with copper being oxidized and silver being reduced. In other words - silver is being replaced in the solution by more reactive copper.

No such thing as Ag⁺(s) - Ag⁺ is an ion and can be present either in the solution, or in some ionic crystal. That'll be Ag⁺(aq) or AgX(s).

I have no clue what you just said. I understand that copper replaces silver. But how can the form of Ag be dissolved? We poured the silver through filter paper and it came out. If it were dissolved into the solution wouldn't it have gone right through the filter paper?

Unbalanced Equation:
Cu(s) + AgX (s) ----> Ag(s) + CuX(aq)

Cu replaces the Ag.

Balanced Equation:
Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

Hopefully this is right, I have been stumped on this thing for the whole weekend....

[Borek]

I have no clue what you just said. I understand that copper replaces silver. But how can the form of Ag be dissolved? We poured the silver through filter paper and it came out. If it were dissolved into the solution wouldn't it have gone right through the filter paper?

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.

Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

This one is much better, although I would put it as net ionic:

Cu(s) + 2Ag⁺(aq) -> Cu²⁺ + 2Ag(s)

Note that you have started with saturated solution of AgX. That means it contains Ag⁺ and X^-. X^- is just a spectator - it doesn't take place in the reaction. Everything that happens in the solution happens between copper wire (Cu(s)) and dissolved cations Ag⁺. X^- just float around - bored

[Toxage]

I have no clue what you just said. I understand that copper replaces silver. But how can the form of Ag be dissolved? We poured the silver through filter paper and it came out. If it were dissolved into the solution wouldn't it have gone right through the filter paper?

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.

Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

This one is much better, although I would put it as net ionic:

Cu(s) + 2Ag⁺(aq) -> Cu²⁺ + 2Ag(s)

Note that you have started with saturated solution of AgX. That means it contains Ag⁺ and X^-. X^- is just a spectator - it doesn't take place in the reaction. Everything that happens in the solution happens between copper wire (Cu(s)) and dissolved cations Ag⁺. X^- just float around - bored

I am so confused. I thought that in order for two things to react together they had to balanced each other out.

How does Cu react with Ag when they are both positively charged?
How do you know that X doesn't react?

Balanced Equation:
Cu(s) + 2AgX(aq) -> CuAg2(s) + 2X- (aq)

Is that right?

[Borek]

I am so confused. I thought that in order for two things to react together they had to balanced each other out.

No idea what you mean. You must have misunderstood something earlier. Perhaps what you mean is that compounds (ionic salts) must be neutral, so positive charge of cations must neutralize negatove charge of anions. But it has nothing to do with reactions.

How does Cu react with Ag when they are both positively charged?

You are repeating it umpth time and I told you it is not true. When they are reacting one is charged and second is not. Once they react second is charged and first it not. But it is perfectly possible for two cations to react.

How do you know that X doesn't react?

I know chemistry But even not knowing it - your experiment description tells about copper reacting with silver. It doesn't tell a word about what happens to X^- - and for a reason.

Cu(s) + 2AgX(aq) -> CuAg2(s) + 2X- (aq)

Is that right?

No. The one you have posted previously was OK, I have just tried to show you how to improve it. Now you are trying to invent some completely new compounds - you don't need them. Copper (solid and cation) and silver (cation and solid) are all you need.

[Toxage]

Just To Verify:

Balanced Equation= Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

Net Ionic Equaton = Cu(s) + 2Ag+(aq) -> Cu2+ + 2Ag(s)

What would be the ionic equation?

Cu²⁺ + 2Ag⁺ +2X^- ---> Cu²⁺ + 2X^- + 2Ag(s)

[Borek]

Balanced Equation= Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

In a way it is correct. But it is not the way it goes. If you will mix dry copper filings with dry AgX they will not react. Add some water - and off we go. For this reaction to take place AgX must be dissolved. Even if it is very weakly soluble, it is still soluble (solubility it what you are asked to determine) - and it reacts only because it is soluble.

Net Ionic Equaton = Cu(s) + 2Ag+(aq) -> Cu2+ + 2Ag(s)

OK

What would be the ionic equation?

Cu²⁺ + 2Ag⁺ +2X^- ---> Cu²⁺ + 2X^- + 2Ag(s)

OK

[Toxage]

In a way it is correct. But it is not the way it goes. If you will mix dry copper filings with dry AgX they will not react. Add some water - and off we go. For this reaction to take place AgX must be dissolved. Even if it is very weakly soluble, it is still soluble (solubility it what you are asked to determine) - and it reacts only because it is soluble

I understand that we need water for the reaction to take place, but I am not sure how to add that into the equation.

Do you just add water to both sides?

Balanced Equation= H2O(l) + Cu(s) + 2AgX (s) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq) + H2O (l)

Or Do I dissolve the AgX?

Balanced Equation= Cu(s) + 2AgX (aq) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

[Borek]

Balanced Equation= Cu(s) + 2AgX (aq) ----> 2Ag(s) + CuX2(aq)

That's correct. Water doesn't take place in reaction so it should be not listed as reagent.