April 25, 2024, 05:29:42 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Constantly loseing mass substance?  (Read 3985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

xitenshiix

  • Guest
Constantly loseing mass substance?
« on: December 05, 2005, 09:59:20 PM »
Okay so I have this editorial to write in response to this article named "Young young chemist discovers a substance that continually loses weight." I have to respond to either refute it or agree with it. There has to be ample amount of evidence for the explanation. My teacher says there is only one right answer to this so it better be right (she's kind of scary  :o) Anyways from what I know there cant be a substance that constantly loses mass by itself without a type of reaction with it. However are there substances that can react by itself with a given range of time. I mean it's probably a really easy question I just dont know what to make of it. If someone could help that would be great thanks.

---- I think I got the answer ^^ so please dont worry yourselves anymore----
« Last Edit: December 05, 2005, 10:36:26 PM by xitenshiix »

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5298
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re:Constantly loseing mass substance?
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2005, 10:44:20 PM »
A sampl of Uranium will loose mass over time. :P
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Offline Alberto_Kravina

  • Assault Chemist
  • Retired Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 608
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-15
Re:Constantly loseing mass substance?
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2005, 07:41:38 AM »
Quote
Okay so I have this editorial to write in response to this article named "Young young chemist discovers a substance that continually loses weight."

Hmmm.."substance"..do you mean a solid or a liquid? If it is a liquid the solution is quite simple: it evaporates. but for a solid....I think that Mitch´s solution is correct because every radioactive substance loses weight. Mabye a hydrous salt that "loses" water could be another solution, but Mitch´s answer is better  :)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 07:43:19 AM by Alberto_Kravina »

Offline Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27663
  • Mole Snacks: +1801/-410
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re:Constantly loseing mass substance?
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2005, 07:53:54 AM »
The question is worded in such a way, that every answer is correct. It doesn't state anything about whether the sustance is kept closed or not, and that's hell of a difference.

But I like Mitch idea too - it is probably "perpendicular" to what teacher wants and expects.
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3177
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-13
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re:Constantly loseing mass substance?
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2005, 08:57:28 AM »
you have an array of reasons to explain the phenomena.

firstly, you have to establish the identity of the substance. if you can't identify the substance, then you must determine the mode which mass is lost.

radioactivity can be detected if the mass loss occurs through radioactive decay.

if the substance loose mass by loosing water or evaporation, put the substance inside an air-tight container. Over time, the total mass of the container and the substance inside should not change because nothing escape.
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Sponsored Links