June 30, 2022, 03:32:57 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Borek

• Mr. pH
• Deity Member
• Posts: 27120
• Mole Snacks: +1761/-405
• Gender:
• I am known to be occasionally wrong.
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2013, 05:17:17 PM »
How many $1 coins do you need to pay if the price of the item is$2.7?
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info, pH-meter.info

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1177
• Mole Snacks: +28/-94
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2013, 05:45:17 PM »
How many $1 coins do you need to pay if the price of the item is$2.7?

So then we have to round up 3 photons it is ... I'll get back to 2.3 at the next opportunity.

#### Sophia7X

• Full Member
• Posts: 248
• Mole Snacks: +32/-4
• Gender:
• I, a universe of atoms, an atom in the universe.
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2013, 07:29:30 PM »

« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 07:39:40 PM by Sophia7X »
Entropy happens.

#### Sophia7X

• Full Member
• Posts: 248
• Mole Snacks: +32/-4
• Gender:
• I, a universe of atoms, an atom in the universe.
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2013, 10:08:57 PM »
OK I got 27.3% for problem 2 #3 and 4(a) I got 3.47*10^7 m^3 for O2, and 4.26*10^7 kg not sure if correct.... anyone attempt these ones yet?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 10:27:11 PM by Sophia7X »
Entropy happens.

#### Rutherford

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1868
• Mole Snacks: +60/-29
• Gender:
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2013, 04:22:46 AM »
Thanks very much Sophia7X.
This problem becomes more and more strange. In 1. we need to calculate the minimum number of photons, but in 2. we find out that the Gibb's energy we used isn't correct.

If someone is interested in checking the answers for the first problem, I found a link few weeks ago: http://www.nanometer.ru/2013/02/06/13601765911974.html (it is in Russian ).

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1177
• Mole Snacks: +28/-94
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2013, 07:50:55 AM »
Thanks very much Sophia7X.
This problem becomes more and more strange. In 1. we need to calculate the minimum number of photons, but in 2. we find out that the Gibb's energy we used isn't correct.

If someone is interested in checking the answers for the first problem, I found a link few weeks ago: http://www.nanometer.ru/2013/02/06/13601765911974.html (it is in Russian ).

Not quite ... we calculate standard Gibbs' energy ΔG° in 2.1, then used that for the minimum number of photons. In 2.2 though we calculate Gibbs' energy (not standard) ΔG, calculation of which relies on having ΔG° as I calculated a few posts ago. ΔGr° is the energy needing to be provided for the reaction to proceed, not ΔGr.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 09:09:34 AM by Big-Daddy »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1177
• Mole Snacks: +28/-94
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2013, 07:51:55 AM »
OK I got 27.3% for problem 2 #3 and 4(a) I got 3.47*10^7 m^3 for O2, and 4.26*10^7 kg not sure if correct.... anyone attempt these ones yet?

Yeah 27.30% for 2.3, how did you arrive at those for 2.4?  We are not given how much solar energy is available ...

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1177
• Mole Snacks: +28/-94
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2013, 10:44:09 AM »
OK I got 27.3% for problem 2 #3 and 4(a) I got 3.47*10^7 m^3 for O2, and 4.26*10^7 kg not sure if correct.... anyone attempt these ones yet?

OK so I just saw that actually we are given the solar energy available so we can calculate it. I don't think it's that vague.

2.4.a. N[photons]=8.53881·1033; m[CH2O]=4.2574·107 kg; V[O2]=3.46704·107 m3.
2.4.b. N[photons]=8.47896·1029; m[CH2O]=4,227.58 kg; V[O2]=3,442.7 m3.

Looks like it agrees completely with your calculations.

I can clarify any part of my method if someone wants.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 12:03:32 PM by Big-Daddy »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 1177
• Mole Snacks: +28/-94
« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2013, 12:09:49 PM »
Am I misinterpreting 2.5 or is it unexpectedly easy?

E(absorbed by plants)=E(available)*(1/10)
E(converted)=E(absorbed by plants)*0.272966
E(converted)=E(available)*(1/10)*0.272966

All this from 2.4. And now the question asks for E(converted)/E(available).

E(converted)/E(available)=E(available)*(1/10)*0.272966/E(available)
E(converted)/E(available)=(1/10)*0.272966=2.73%

Which appears to have no dependence on E(available).