My Math Forum Empirical Formula

 Chemistry Chemistry Forum

 July 24th, 2018, 03:17 AM #1 Member   Joined: Aug 2016 From: South Korea Posts: 54 Thanks: 0 Empirical Formula What do they mean by '"too far to round" here? Can't that be rounded and just be 3? Did I miss something (like a rule or something?) in my chemistry class about that kind of number being 'too far to round'? if I did, can someone explain to me when should I multiply each solution to the same factor? too far too round.jpg
 July 24th, 2018, 04:34 AM #2 Math Team   Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 13,984 Thanks: 995 Ask your teacher....
July 24th, 2018, 10:29 AM   #3
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,307
Thanks: 1976

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SlayedByMath Can't that be rounded . . .
I'm not sure what you are referring to as "that".

All that's meant is that you shouldn't "round" the ratio 3.6:0.6 to 4:1 if the appropriate ratio is 6:1.

July 24th, 2018, 10:32 AM   #4
Global Moderator

Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,913
Thanks: 1113

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Quote:
That's not always a practical alternative.

July 24th, 2018, 11:19 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,306
Thanks: 549

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SlayedByMath What do they mean by '"too far to round" here? Can't that be rounded and just be 3? Did I miss something (like a rule or something?) in my chemistry class about that kind of number being 'too far to round'? if I did, can someone explain to me when should I multiply each solution to the same factor? Attachment 9816
It is not pure math. The context is the atomic theory. The number of each type of atom in a single molecule is, according to the atomic theory, supposed to be an integer. You have, however, experimental data, which will not be exact.

So first they do the indicated arithmetic on the experimental results and get approximate answers of 4.76, 6.10, 0.68, and 1.70. These are not expected to be integers because they do not represent a single molecule. Nevertheless, we expect the ratios among them to reflect the numbers of different types of atom in each molecule (subject to experimental error).

So they take ratios relative to the smallest number, which is 0.68: this is essentially a preliminary hypothesis that there is only one atom of this element in each molecule. They hope to get numbers that are very close to integers for all the elements. When they divide by 0.68, they get quotients very close to integers except in one case. They now ask what integer they must multiply all the quotients by to get integers in each case. In this case it is 2.

It is a mistake to call it rounding. When they get an answer of 8.97 expecting an integer, they attribute the 0.03 to experimental error and correct the answer to 9. But if the difference is too large to attribute to experimental error, they say that such a correction is improper.

They come up with a formula of $C_{14}H_{18}N_{2}O_5.$

July 24th, 2018, 11:21 AM   #6
Math Team

Joined: Oct 2011

Posts: 13,984
Thanks: 995

Quote:
 Originally Posted by greg1313 That's not always a practical alternative.
True; but stated is "in my chemistry class"....

July 24th, 2018, 11:30 AM   #7
Global Moderator

Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,913
Thanks: 1113

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Denis True; but stated is "in my chemistry class"....
I think what I stated still holds.

 July 24th, 2018, 11:48 AM #8 Senior Member   Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 891 Thanks: 269 A pretty good explanation Jeff. The only thing I'd add is a request to the OP to show the full question next time to stop everybody having to guess what was going on. Thanks from greg1313
July 24th, 2018, 12:22 PM   #9
Math Team

Joined: Oct 2011

Posts: 13,984
Thanks: 995

Quote:
 Originally Posted by greg1313 I think what I stated still holds.
If you don't think the same as I do, then you're wrong

July 24th, 2018, 02:17 PM   #10
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,042
Thanks: 815

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Denis If you don't think the same as I do, then you're wrong
Nobody thinks like you, Denis.

-Dan

 Tags empirical, formula

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post jeho Chemistry 1 December 3rd, 2016 01:29 PM BagCheck Advanced Statistics 0 December 6th, 2015 11:51 AM finitehelp Probability and Statistics 3 March 19th, 2015 09:44 PM dangitnghia Advanced Statistics 1 March 20th, 2014 01:37 PM symmetry Advanced Statistics 2 January 29th, 2007 02:25 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top