Determine the number of moles of oxygen in 7.20mol of H. SO.

Plz download it and enjoy your holiday in rainforest do not fall to ground why not fall to ground why not fall .

The key about the unit mole is that it does not reference which type of entity is specified. Using the mole only makes sense if you define what you are using the mole for. This could be:

protons

atoms

ions

molecules

formula units of an ionic or metallic solid

aggregates

apples

stars

…

The mole is basically just a large number that you can use instead of e.g. the number 1,000,000 or the number 0.5.

So in your question, 1.3 mol of H2SO4 means that you have 1.3×6.022×1023 molecules of H2SO4, each of which contains one sulphur atom, two hydrogen atoms and four oxygen atoms. Thus, in one mole of H2SO4 you can find:

2 mol of hydrogen atoms

1 mol of sulphur atoms

50 mol of protons

50 mol of electrons

and 4 mol of oxygen atoms.

The correct solution is thus:

n(O)=4×n(H2SO4)=4×1.3×6.022×1023=3.13×1024

Explanation:

The key about the unit mole is that it does not reference which type of entity is specified. Using the mole only makes sense if you define what you are using the mole for. This could be:

protons

atoms

ions

molecules

formula units of an ionic or metallic solid

aggregates

apples

stars

…

The mole is basically just a large number that you can use instead of e.g. the number 1,000,000 or the number 0.5.

So in your question, 1.3 mol of H2SO4 means that you have 1.3×6.022×1023 molecules of H2SO4, each of which contains one sulphur atom, two hydrogen atoms and four oxygen atoms. Thus, in one mole of H2SO4 you can find:

2 mol of hydrogen atoms

1 mol of sulphur atoms

50 mol of protons

50 mol of electrons

and 4 mol of oxygen atoms.

The correct solution is thus:

n(O)=4×n(H2SO4)=4×1.3×6.022×1023=3.13×1024

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation:

m=9

step-by-step explanation: